Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

National Assistance

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the number of old-age pensioners receiving National Assistance grants at the latest convenient date; what was the average payment per person; and the total sum paid in 1954 to this class of persons.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Ernest Marples): At 21st December, 1954, about 1,157,000 regular weekly National Assistance grants, some covering the requirements of a household with more than one pensioner, were being paid to retirement and non-contributory old-age pensioners. According to a provisional estimate based on a recent sample inquiry, such grants to this class of persons averaged 15s. 3d. a week and totalled about £45 million in 1954.

Mr. Dodds: In view of what the Minister has said, does that not mean that about one million old-age pensioners who need help most will not be receiving the increase of 7s. 6d. for a single person and 11s. for a married couple, but will be restricted to 2s. 6d. and 4s. under the new scales of the National Assistance Board?

Mr. Marples: That was adequately and fully debated in the House in December. The National Assistance scales that these people most in need will be receiving are higher than ever before in the history of this country.

Mr. Dodds: That does not answer my question. Do not the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given mean that,

when the new scales come into operation, this million people will get only 2s. 6d. and 4s., respectively?

Mr. Maples: That is an entirely different question. The Question on the Order Paper asks the number of old-age pensioners receiving National Assistance.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the number of persons in receipt of National Assistance at the latest convenient date; and what was the comparable figure for 1951.

Mr. Marples: The number of regular weekly National Assistance grants current on 21st December, 1954, was 1,796,000 compared with 1,462,000 on 18th December, 1951.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many payments were being made by the National Assistance Board at 31st December, 1954; how many were being made in supplementation of retirement, sickness, unemployment, and widow's benefits; and how many non-contributory old-age pensions were in payment as at the same date.

Mr. Marples: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the Minister give the number of retirement pensioners who are being supplemented at the present time?

Mr. Marples: The number of retirement pensioners being supplemented at the present time—that is, on 21st December, 1954—is 1,001,000.

Following is the answer:
At 21st December, 1954, the latest date for which the information is available, the figures were as follows:

Thousands.


Regular weekly grants of National Assistance—



Total number
1,796


Number of grants in supplementation of—



Retirement pensions*
1,001


Sickness benefit
138


Unemployment benefit
30


Widow's benefit
93


Non-contributory old-age pensions
315


* Note: —Some of the grants provided for the requirements of a household with more than one pensioner.

Widows

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what improvements he has now decided to make in the pensions of widows receiving only 10s. a week.

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will make a statement on the future position of pension for the pre-1948 widows who now only receive the 10s. per week pension.

Mr. Marples: The position of these widows is among the questions now being considered by the National Insurance Advisory Committee as part of their review of the widowhood provisions of the scheme, and my right hon. Friend must await their report.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Minister try to expedite this matter? Is he not aware that the deserving but diminishing number of widows are suffering both hardship and a sense of injustice? Will he not try to get this Committee to "get a move on" in this very urgent matter?

Mr. Marples: During the course of our debates at the end of last year, my right hon. Friend indicated that pressure ought not to be put on the Committee, because of the complicated nature of this problem. I would remind the House that all comparable widows who come under the 1948 scheme get no pension at all, which indicates how complicated this matter is.

Mr. D. Marshall: Has my hon. Friend any idea when this report will be available?

Mr. Marples: None at all.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when he expects to receive the report from the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the position of widows and the effect of the increased contributions on the lower income groups.

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend received the Committee's report on the liability for contributions of persons with small incomes on 21st January, and it is now being studied. I cannot forecast a date for the receipt of the report on the position of widows.

Miss Ward: Is it the Minister's intention that the Committee should, if pos-

sible, try to find a means of dealing with this problem of the "10s. widow" and that their report should not merely seek to get rid of the trouble?

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend has submitted the question of the conditions of widows' pensions to the Advisory Committee in all good faith and he must now await their report.

Old-Age Pensioners

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that before old-age pensioners receive their proposed increases in pension rates in April next, there will have been increases which have been announced in the prices of various foods and services; that, due to the rise in the cost of living, applications for wage increases are now being negotiated for many trades, and that this will again increase the cost of living; and what action he proposes to take to see that the old-age pensioners do not lose in purchasing value their proposed increases due to the rise in prices of the articles and services that they normally purchase.

Mr. Marples: Parliament dealt with the question of rates of pension as recently as last month.

Mr. Lewis: That answer completely evades the question. Is the Minister not aware that the old-age pensioners do not receive their increases until April, and that the latest figures in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for food, rent and rates, fuel and light have all gone up in one month, November to December, by very large amounts? There are prophecies also of increases in electricity, gas and fares. It means that these people will not be getting any increase at all. Does not the Minister think that something should be done about that?

Mr. Marples: I would not accept all the implications of the hon. Gentleman's original Question or supplementary question. If my right hon. Friend has to take into account every variation in the cost of living, it will really mean that nothing will be done at all.

Prisoners (Contribution Records)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware that discharged


prisoners are unduly penalised by reason of no stamps appearing on their cards during their imprisonment, with the result that though they may obtain work for several months after their discharge, they become ineligible for unemployment and sickness benefit; and whether he will do something to remedy this situation.

Mr. Marples: Arrangements already exist which enable prisoners to maintain their contribution records in certain cases, but the National Insurance Advisory Committee are at present engaged on a general review of all the contribution conditions for benefits and I will draw the attention of the Committee to the point raised by the hon. Member.

Mr. Fletcher: I thank the Minister for that reply, but will he bear in mind that the rehabilitation of discharged prisoners is difficult enough and that they are unduly penalised if, as a result of the present system, they cannot get any sickness or unemployment benefit for two years after they come out of prison? Will he see that consideration is given in all cases? I have a number of letters on this subject which I shall be pleased to send to him.

Mr. Marples: I shall be glad if the hon. Member will send me those letters. I shall call the attention of the Advisory Committee to the supplementary question, but it would be unwise for me to express any opinion before the Committee have reported.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the fact that these cards are unstamped is another point which militates against the possible employment of ex-prisoners, as it shows that they are ex-prisoners?

War Pensions (Commutation)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance why he now refuses to commute pensions at the request of war-disabled pensioners who need capital sums.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Brigadier J. G. Smyth): The practice of allowing commutation was suspended in 1939. Since then, successive Ministers of Pensions decided against reviving it on the ground that experience had shown that commutation was not, in

general, in the pensioners' best interests. My right hon. Friend agrees with this view.

Mr. Jeger: Does not the hon. and gallant Member think that, instead of a hard-and-fast line being drawn in these cases, it might be to the advantage of the pensioner if he were given a lump sum when, for instance, he is engaged in a profitable business that requires a little more capital to develop? Will he undertake to examine each case on its merits before giving a definite ruling about every one?

Brigadier Smyth: It is very difficult to discriminate between one case and another. All our experience over the last 15 years points to the fact that it is not in the true interests of the pensioner to allow him to commute his pension. I have seen a lot of tragedies where a man has spent his pension, is still disabled, and has come along to ask us what we can do to help him.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend consider that in certain cases, where a man is in business on his own account, it might be to his advantage if he had up to 20 per cent. of his pension commuted? In special cases, could not that possibility be considered?

Brigadier Smyth: I have considered a great many cases, but it is very difficult to agree to commutation in one case and refuse it in another. All our experience is to the effect that it is a mistake from the pensioner's point of view, and we must put the pensioner first.

Reciprocal Arrangements (Western Germany)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what reciprocal arrangements exist between Great Britain and Western Germany under which persons entitled to pensions and insurance benefits from one country are entitled to continue to draw such benefits notwithstanding the fact that they take up residence in the other country.

Mr. Marples: None, Sir. A reciprocal agreement covering all National Insurance and Industrial Injuries benefits except unemployment benefit is under negotiation, and I hope it will be signed


very shortly. Negotiations for a separate agreement on unemployment benefit are expected to begin in the near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORTS TO CHINA (RUBBER)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what international agreements he has entered into which prevent the shipping of rubber from Malaya and Singapore to China, although rubber is being shipped from Ceylon to China.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): The export of rubber to China from the Federation of Malaya and Singapore was embargoed in pursuance of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution of 18th May, 1951. Ceylon is not a member of the United Nations.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it not time that these restrictions were revised? Does the Minister know that there is a considerable feeling in Malaya that there is a discrimination against them, while we are increasing our trade with China? They feel that the Government have not taken their interests into consideration.

Mr. Nutting: As the hon. Member knows, the Resolution was passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations and can be rescinded only by them. Meanwhile, Her Majesty's Government are honouring that Resolution.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

German Officers (U.K. Visit)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement giving details of the German officers and others who have recently made a tour of British defence positions in this country; the places visited; the military and political background of these men; and details of their past Nazi Party membership and activities.

Mr. Nutting: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the German officers who visited this country during the week of 10th-15th January. They visited the Admiralty and Her Majesty's

ships and establishments in the Portsmouth area. During the late war, all these officers carried out the duties of regular officers serving in wartime. I will circulate their names in the OFFICIAL REPORT. None of them, to my knowledge, was a member of the Nazi Party.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that at least one of them—and, I believe, more—received high decorations from the Nazi Party for his activities?

Mr. Nutting: Decorations were not uncommon in the German armed forces during the war for services in the field, any more than they were uncommon in other armed forces, but none of these generals or officers to whom the hon. Member refers was to my knowledge a member of the Nazi Party; and General Heusinger was arrested on suspicion after the Hitler Plot.

Mr. Shinwell: Have any of these German officers been furnished with information which has been denied to hon. Members on security grounds? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] May I make my question more specific? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only the other day the Under-Secretary of State for Air refused to disclose information about guided missiles and the condition of the Royal Air Force? Can we be assured that these German officers were not supplied with that information?

Mr. Nutting: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know exactly what type of information was supplied to these officers, and whether or not it was classified, perhaps he will be good enough to put down a Question.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman does not know what the information was?

Mr. Nutting: What it means is that I would rather not give the House an answer on the basis of insufficient information.

Following are the names:

The officers concerned were:
Lt. Gen. A. Heusinger.
Lt. Col. M. R. Schwerdtfeger.
Commander W. Rover.
Captain K. A. Zenker.
Captain H. Gerlach.
Colonel W. Gaul.

West German Armed Forces (Officers)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that many of the officers and advisers responsible for the organisation of the new German army proposed in the Paris agreements have Nazi and anti-democratic backgrounds; whether he will make it a condition of ratification of the agreement that Lieutenant-General Count Gerhard Schwerin, formerly a member of the planning department of the Nazi General Staff, Colonel Adolf von Kielnarasegg, General Hans Spiedel, General Maximilian von Edelstein, Major-General Rudolph von Gersdorff, General Wend von Wieterstein, Major-General Smitt von Luettwitz, General Ludwig Cruewell, Lieutenant-General Adolf Heusinger and Colonel Gerhard Panitzki, all of whom have been designated for service with the army, should be barred from holding any office because of their Nazi background.

Mr. Nutting: The answer to both parts of the Question is, "No, Sir."

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that in this instance, as in that referred to in the previous Question, a number of these officers did receive high orders from the Nazi Party, including the Grand Cross with Laurel Wreath and very many other Nazi decorations, for their activities on behalf of the Nazi Party? Are we now to have these Nazis in control of this German army?

Mr. Nutting: The hon. Member knows that when the London and Paris agreements come into force the appointment of senior officers for the future West German armed forces will be a matter for the Federal German Government. So far as the list of names is concerned, which in any case the hon. Member has inaccurately copied out from a Communist publication, the "German Democratic Report," Colonel Kielmansegg was arrested in 1944 for complicity in the plot against Hitler; General Speidel was arrested after the 1944 plot; Major-General Gersdorff was an early member of an active and resolute group of resistants to the Nazi Party and General Heusinger was arrested by the Gestapo in 1944.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Minister to make

charges and allegations which he cannot in any way substantiate? In fact, I copied these details from the "New York Times." Is it in order for the Minister to make allegations that I copied them from any paper?

Mr. Speaker: I understood the Minister to say that the hon. Member had copied these from some paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "A Communist paper."] If that is not so and the Minister is inaccurate about that, he ought to withdraw his remark.

Mr. Nutting: Of course, if the hon. Gentleman assures me that he did not copy these names from the Communist newspaper in question, I naturally accept his explanation and withdraw my remark.

Soviet Proposals

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the Soviet Government's acceptance of the principle of internationally supervised free elections for an all-German Government, he will now propose to the Governments of the United States of America, France and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the immediate holding of four-Power talks on Germany.

Mr. D. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he will make to the proposals concerning Germany made by the Soviet Government on 15th January.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the fact that the Soviet Government are now prepared to consider holding free elections under international control in Germany, he will restate his own proposals for free elections in Germany.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take, through diplomatic channels or otherwise, to secure the clarification of the official proposal made by the Soviet Government on 15th January.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Anthony Eden): At the Berlin Conference, just a year ago, I put forward, in agreement with the French and United States Governments, a practical plan for the holding of free elections


in Germany as the essential first step in the process of German reunification in freedom. This plan provided for the necessary safeguards to ensure that these elections, held throughout the whole of Germany, should be genuinely free. Only thus could a representative all-German Government be established with which we could negotiate a peace treaty. These proposals were rejected by the Soviet Government.
In their Note of 29th November to the Soviet Government, the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States and France pointed out that the Soviet Government had never advanced any specific alternative proposals to those which we had put forward in Berlin. The Note added that the three Governments awaited a precise indication of any concrete proposals the Soviet Government might care to make. The Soviet Government ignored this invitation in their reply of 9th December.
The Soviet proposal to which the right hon. or hon. Members refer formed part of a statement broadcast by Moscow radio. The text contains so many ambiguities and omissions that it would be unwise to assume from it that the Soviet Government is any more ready now than a year ago to agree to genuinely free elections. In the view of Her Majesty's Government, the Soviet Government in adopting this procedure have been more concerned to influence the German people against ratification of the London and Paris agreements than to put forward concrete proposals.
If, however, the Soviet Government respond to the invitation made to them in our Note of 29th November, Her Majesty's Government will give it careful consideration, in consultation with the other interested Governments.

Mr. Warbey: While appreciating the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman at the end of his reply, may I ask him if he will take into account the fact that the Soviet statement of 15th January was said to be an official declaration of Soviet Government policy? Since it represents a substantial advance towards the Western point of view, will he not make it clear that he will be prepared to enter into serious negotiations if the Soviet Government put these proposals into an official Note?

Sir A. Eden: I thought my answer was pretty lucid on that point. We delivered a Note to them on 29th November inviting them to reply to these particular points. Should they do so through the ordinary methods by which Governments communicate with each other, the procedure which we will follow will be as I have outlined.

Mr. Healey: In view of the widespread confusion which the Soviet statement undoubtedly caused in Germany, to which the Foreign Secretary himself referred, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision? Will he consider the possibility of a three-Power statement referring to the Soviet proposal in which the Western Powers ask for clarification of the Soviet Note and stress their willingness to meet the Soviet Union on German unity as soon as the Paris treaties are in force, and also pointing out that the readiness of both sides to make a compromise will be greatly increased when that has been achieved?

Sir A. Eden: I should like to see that question on the Order Paper, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I do not necessarily dissent from it, but these are complicated matters and I do not want to give a snap answer.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I follow up what my hon. Friend has just said? Does not the Foreign Secretary recall that in 1946 the four Allied commanders agreed to free elections in Berlin, which, if I remember rightly, worked reasonably well? Will he not make inquiries through diplomatic channels to find out whether the Russians will not now be willing to agree to conditions for all-German elections, comparable to those adopted for Berlin?

Sir A. Eden: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for putting that point. To the best of my recollection, those regulations were used only for the 1946 election and have not been used since. I should like to look at the point and examine it.

Miss Ward: Would my right hon. Friend tell right hon. Gentlemen opposite why the Russians did not offer free elections when they had the chance?

Sir A. Eden: For the same reasons, I suppose, that they are not offering them now.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a good many diplomatic communications usually contain ambiguities and that if should be the purpose of diplomacy to clear them up? Is he aware that the people in Germany who are most likely to be affected are the people who regard free elections as just as important as he does, namely, the leaders of the German trade unions and the German Social Democratic Party, who are urging us to accept the Russian offer in the interests of the people of Germany?

Sir A. Eden: I have said, first of all, that there is no Russian offer in those terms. If the desire of the Soviet Government is to give a reply to our Note, they can do so perfectly easily, and it will be immediately examined. I have also said that I am not going to deal with broadcast propaganda as if it were an official document.

Mr. A. Henderson: Would the right hon. Gentleman clear up this point? A good many people seem to think that the last Note of the Soviet Government made a considerable advance on the previous statement. Is it not a fact that, in the Note of April, 1952, the Russian Government agreed to accept the principle of free elections under international supervision?

Sir A. Eden: It may well be so. I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We sent a Note to the Russians making it quite clear that we were ready to receive their observations on this particular topic. To that we have not received any reply, save that one broadcast statement, and I think we are perfectly correct in saying that, until we receive a reply, we do not intend to deal with a broadcast statement as if it were official Government policy.

Mr. Strachey: If the Foreign Secretary's purpose is to clear up ambiguities in the recent statement by the Soviet Government, which surely cannot be unconnected with the reason which my hon. Friend has given, what is the real objection to taking up the suggestion from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that these exchanges or negotiations with the Soviet Government should go on pari passu with the process of ratification?

Sir A. Eden: I must be frank with the House. My objection is that I think that these movements are made for the express purpose of trying to hold up ratification of the agreements, and I am deeply convinced, as I think is a majority of the House, that the chances of peace will be reinforced once these agreements are ratified.

Sir D. Savory: Did not the Russian spokesman at Yalta agree to free and unfettered elections in Poland, and did not the late Mr. Ernest Bevin freely admit in this House that, so far from being free, they were carried out under compulsion and threats of every kind?

Sir A. Eden: My hon. Friend is right on both points.

Reunification

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far the Government's policy of bringing about the reunification of Germany is on the basis of full sovereignty.

Mr. Nutting: It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that any German Government resulting from genuinely free elections held throughout Germany should be fully sovereign.

Ministerial Visit

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he next proposes to visit Western Germany.

Mr. Nutting: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans for visiting Western Germany.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister think that his right hon. Friend would be well advised to go again to Western Germany in order to get acquainted with public opinion there, which is against German rearmament? If he cannot go officially, cannot he go incognito, disguised as a working man or as a minister of religion, in order to find out what the people of Germany are really thinking? They do not want conscription or rearmament.

Mr. Nutting: I do not accept the implication of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. As he well knows, the freely and properly elected majority of the German Bundestag and Parliament


has supported the policy of the rearmament of Western Germany, subject to safeguards, and its contribution to European defence.

Oral Answers to Questions — JORDAN (ASSISTANCE)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what financial assistance is now being given by this country to Jordan.

Mr. Nutting: Provision has been made for Jordan to receive during the financial year 1954–55, approximately £10 million, not including the interest-free loan of £1,600,000 for economic development, of which the House was informed on 16th November, 1953.
The figure of £10 million comprises the Arab Legion subsidy of £7,500,000, expenditure on Army Votes towards the maintenance of certain Arab Legion units which are not required for the normal role of the Jordanian forces amounting to nearly £1½ million, a special subsidy of £750,000 to cover Jordan's budgetary deficit, and £200,000 paid annually towards the pensions of ex-Palestinian officials now resident in Jordan.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the Minister say whether he is satisfied that, by reason of this and other financial assistance, the Government of Jordan are taking adequate steps to absorb into the country's economy a sufficient number of Palestinian refugees in Jordan?

Mr. Nutting: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, this money is not given for the purpose of dealing with Palestinian refugees. They can be dealt with by the U.N.W.R.A. budget under the United Nations, to which Her Majesty's Government also contribute.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Costa Rica

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken by the British representative on the Security Council of the United Nations to place the invasion of Costa Rica on the agenda of the Security Council as a threat to peace.

Mr. Nutting: None, Sir.

Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the second occasion during the past 12 months on which the Security Council has been by-passed in a matter affecting a breach of international peace, and does he not think that this contrasts very unfavourably with what happened in the case of Korea? Should not the same action have been taken by Her Majesty's Government's representative to bring this matter before the Security Council?

Mr. Nutting: There was no question of by-passing either the Security Council or the United Nations. Costa Rica did not appeal to the Security Council for any help, but was content to have that matter dealt with by the Organisation of American States, as is permitted, and, indeed, encouraged, by the United Nations Charter.

Mr. Smithers: Does not my right hon. Friend think it a very encouraging sign that the Organisation of American States had so much success in this matter in one of the most dangerous and turbulent parts of the Western Hemisphere?

Mr. Nutting: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Disarmament Talks

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, at the forthcoming world disarmament talks, he will propose that any world disarmament convention achieved would apply to the defence forces allotted to Western Germany under the Paris Agreements in equal proportion to all other countries.

Mr. Nutting: Her Majesty's Government have always maintained that any world disarmament convention should apply to all countries. One of the tasks of the Disarmament Sub-Committee, which is expected to begin meeting in London towards the end of next month, will be to reach agreement on the method of limiting armed forces and armaments all over the world.

Mr. Henderson: Would not the Minister agree that the best way of settling the problem of German rearmament would be to achieve a world disarmament agreement which would limit the armed forces of all countries?

Mr. Nutting: I certainly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that. Indeed, I would go further and say that that would be one of the best ways of achieving a solution to many of the other outstanding problems.

Spain

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the reasons for supporting Spain's admission to the United Nations as a permanent observer.

Mr. Nutting: Spain has not been admitted to the United Nations as a permanent observer. There is no such status. The question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the status recently given to Spain in relation to the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation; and for what reasons.

Mr. Nutting: Spain is to participate fully in the work of the Ministerial Committee for Agriculture and Food, and its subordinate bodies, and is to send an observer to meetings of the Council and of certain specific Technical Committees whenever they deal with questions which might affect agriculture or food. Acceptance of these arrangements was one of the conditions on which the European Conference on the Organisation of Agricultural Markets insisted before they would agree that their work should be transferred to the Organisation for European Economic Co-operations.

Mr. Davies: Does the Minister consider that increasing the prestige of Spain and improving her status at the present time is desirable in view of the policy being pursued by the Spanish Government, particularly in relation to this country? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that this is not the first step towards bringing Spain into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?

Mr. Nutting: This is a Question about O.E.E.C., which has nothing to do with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. So far as the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary is concerned, I believe that the more co-operation we can get on economic matters—on agriculture and food production—in Europe, the better.

Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Spain is part of Europe, and that the more we can bring her into the organisation of Europe the better?

Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman also seek more co-operation with Spain in regard to Gibraltar and the question of human rights, in which there is no co-operation at the present time?

Mr. Nutting: I think that Her Majesty's Government's views on both those matters are sufficiently well known to the Spanish Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA (BRITISH TROOPS)

Mr. R. Harris: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it will be possible for British troops to be withdrawn from Korea.

Mr. Nutting: British troops will remain in Korea so long as the situation requires.

Mr. Harris: Cannot the Minister of State give any better indication as to when they might be coming home?

Mr. Nutting: I am afraid that I cannot. They are at present still required, and any future decision about their withdrawal or retention could be taken only in the light of the circumstances existing at the time.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the troops are doing in Korea?

Mr. Nutting: They are upholding the peace.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SERVICE

Select Committee's Report (White Paper)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to inform the House of the results of the examination of the recommendations made in the Seventh Report from the Select Committee on Estimates on the Foreign Service.

Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir. This Report has been very carefully examined and, in view of the interest of the House in this matter, my right hon. Friend is arranging


for a White Paper containing the results of the examination and comments on the Report to be laid this afternoon.

Miss Ward: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the speed with which the Foreign Secretary has acted?

Burgess and Maclean

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he now has any further information about the disappearance of Burgess and Maclean.

Mr. Nutting: I have no statement to make at present.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does that answer mean that the Minister is likely to make a statement on the matter in the not-too-distant future? Has the Foreign Office information, which, for some dubious reason, it will not disclose, or is its Intelligence not very intelligent? Is the Minister aware that back benchers of this House often know more about these disappearances than does the Foreign Office?

Mr. Nutting: The reason why I am not in a position to make any statement at the present moment is that I would not wish to make a statement based on inadequate information and insufficient researches, seeing that the investigation into these questions is still being pursued.

Captain Kerby: Has the Foreign Office studied the book published last week in which the allegation is made that both these men were notorious perverts? Can he deny that allegation?

Oral Answers to Questions — FORMOSA (SITUATION)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further statement he has to make in respect of the situation on the South-East China coast; and what progress has been made towards securing a suspension of hostilities in that area.

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the official talks in progress between Britain, New Zealand, and the United States of America on the situation existing between the Chinese Government and Chiang Kai-shek.

Sir A. Eden: The question of the fighting in the Formosa Straits is to be considered by the Security Council today, and it would not be right that I should comment further on the situation, beyond recalling that the first concern of Her Majesty's Government is to find a way to stop the fighting. This was also the purpose of the New Zealand Government in bringing the matter to the attention of the Security Council. Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom supported that initiative and, with the agreement of the New Zealand Government, informed the Soviet and Chinese Governments in advance of its purpose and urged them to co-operate. The Soviet Government have now brought before the Security Council a separate proposal of their own.
Her Majesty's Government remain convinced that a solution will not be found through attempts to apportion blame or to oblige one side or the other to give up what they regard as their rights or essential interests. They will, however, do everything in their power to promote agreement so that the fighting is stopped in this inflammable situation.

Mr. Sorensen: While thoroughly appreciating the delicate nature of the negotiations at the moment, could not the right hon. Gentleman at least say whether it is true or untrue that the Chinese Government have indicated that they refuse to consider the question of a cessation of hostilities?

Sir A. Eden: I would rather not put it like that. What is happening at the moment is that the Security Council is meeting this afternoon. It is my hope that it will issue an invitation to the Chinese Government. That is our hope, and that is what we trust will happen. I think that it might be much wiser to leave it at that at the present time.

Mr. Shinwell: In order to remove what I think is undoubtedly some confusion in the minds of many people about the legalistic aspects of the position, for instance, the distinction between the offshore islands and the Pescadores and the position of the Cairo Agreement, and the like, would the Foreign Secretary consider including in the OFFICIAL REPORT a factual statement of the position?

Sir A. Eden: I should certainly be glad to consider that if the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to put down


a question. I should like to set out the legal position, as it appears to us, but, of course, the right hon. Gentleman will know that that is not the only consideration. However, it would be good if it were set out.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that even across the Atlantic, in the United States, there seems to be a good deal of confusion about the legalistic aspects.

Sir A. Eden: I agree.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the threat to peace resulting from the dispute over Formosa, if he will propose at the United Nations that the future of the island shall be decided by free elections.

Mr. Nutting: As my right hon. Friend said on 26th January, our first concern is to secure a cessation of hostilities in this area. Once this has been achieved, it will be possible to consider other issues.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister assure us that his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is as enthusiastic about free elections in Formosa as in Eastern Germany, and has he any idea what would happen to Chiang Kai-shek if there were such free elections in Formosa?

Mr. Nutting: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary is too speculative for me to follow it.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the great importance of the Formosa question, will Her Majesty's Government work for its solution through the United Nations?

Mr. Nutting: That is precisely where we have negotiated the first steps towards what we hope will be a solution.

Mr. Paget: Is there the slightest chance of the Chinese Communist Government accepting the verdict of free elections in Formosa?

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST (INFORMATION SERVICES)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is satisfied that Britain's point of view is adequately presented in Middle Eastern countries, having regard to the small

number of British books available in the area, and to the lean budgets for information and news services; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nutting: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the importance of presenting Britain's point of view to the Middle Eastern countries. A considerable effort is being made there by our Information Services and the British Council, which maintain libraries of British books and periodicals in 11 Middle Eastern centres.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister do his best to persuade the Treasury to be a little more forthcoming in this matter, as there is a widespread belief that it is Treasury opposition which makes it difficult to get British books into this area? There seems to be a distinct lack of money available?

Mr. Nutting: We are doing all we can. This year, the British Council will resume its activities in Persia and will open an office in Kuwait.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Mining Subsidence (Report)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many of the recommendations of the Turner Report on Mining Subsidence have not yet been implemented; and how many of them will require legislation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): None has been carried out except those to which the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1950, gave partial effect; and all would require legislation.

Mr. Swingler: As it is now more than five years since the generally accepted recommendations of this Report were published, has the Parliamentary Secretary abandoned all hope of implementing those recommendations and helping the citizens whose interests are being undermined; and if he has not abandoned all hope, when may we expect his Department to take action to implement these five-year-old recommendations?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: We never abandon all hope. The hon. Gentleman may recall that the matter has been under


consideration by the Departments concerned in conjunction with the National Coal Board. That consideration has now been reported to the Ministers concerned.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power his estimate of the cost to the national exchequer of implementing in full the recommendations of the Turner Report on Mining Subsidence.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I cannot add to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member on 30th November, 1953.

Mr. Swingler: How long will it take, after the five years' consultation between his Department, the National Coal Board and other people concerned, to work out constructive proposals to implement the recommendations of the Turner Report? Can we have an assurance that it will not take another five years to find the money from the Treasury to assist these long-suffering local authorities and citizens?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: We shall move with the utmost expedition.

Mr. Noel-Baker: What was the estimate of cost in the previous answer to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? If there was no such estimate, why cannot he make one now?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: There was no estimate in the previous answer because this was considered a matter not subject to a reasonable possibility of estimate. As time goes on the possibility becomes still more speculative.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Surely it is easy to find out the cost which is imposed on local authorities by mining subsidence and which ought to be borne by the nation?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: If the right hon. Gentleman, with the knowledge which he has, will consider the matter further, I am sure that he will see that what cost will arise is entirely speculative.

Deliveries (Grades and Prices)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is satisfied that all coal merchants are acquainted with Article 11 of the retail coal prices order and are delivering tickets specifying grade and price of coal delivered; and what reports he has received on this subject from his enforcement officers.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I would refer the hon. Lady to the reply which I gave her on 15th November. No increase in the rate of offences under Article 11 of the Retail Coal Prices Order has been reported.

Mrs. Mann: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that I have already sent him letters about a good many cases on which he could take action? Has he not proceeded with regard to those cases?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: All cases which the hon. Lady has referred to me have been considered. All those in which there seemed to be appropriate cause have been investigated. In no case has any evidence of infringement been obtained.

Coke Prices (Increase)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what considerations caused him to authorise the recent increase in domestic coke prices; what is the average increase; and which areas are affected by it.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The reasons were additions to the cost of transporting the coke and increases in the costs of retail distribution. The average increase is about 2s. 9d. per ton and all areas South of a line from the Wash to the Severn are affected.

Mr. Nabarro: Have not Her Majesty's Government recently announced their support for a policy of clean air? As coke is the principal smokeless fuel we envisage employing, and as the supply of coke from the gas boards has steadily been increasing over the last two years, does not my hon. Friend agree that we should endeavour to reduce its price and not increase it?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: A reduction in the price of coke, as well as that of coal, is the constant desire of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Gibson: In addition to paying some attention to the suggestion which has just been made, will the Minister pay considerable attention to increasing the supply of coke? In my part of London, we have to wait four to eight weeks before an order can be delivered. That is much too long and causes householders a good deal of difficulty.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: There is no shortage of coke. If the hon. Member will give me particulars, I shall be pleased to look into his complaint.

Mr. Mellish: Would it not be better if the Parliamentary Secretary told his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that the right method is to approach the petrol companies who recently increased the cost of petrol, which means increased costs to the nationalised industries, with the result that prices will go up again?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: No, the increases were made for a variety of different causes.

Mr. Robens: In view of the campaign for clean air and of the Government's intention in that regard, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary will, firstly, consult closely with the Gas Council about the supply of coke, and, secondly, watch the prices very carefully?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: My right hon. Friend has already taken that advice.

Imports from America

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much coal has been imported since 1st April, 1954; what part of it has been brought from the United States of America and paid for in dollars; what are the present arrangements for paying for United States coal; and to what extent payments in sterling for United States coal and freights are retrospective.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: About three million tons, of which 400,000 came from the United States and was paid for in dollars. Such imports are continuing, but a further 250,000 tons have been purchased for sterling under an agreement with the United States Government which is not retrospective.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that I first suggested to him some months ago that it was possible to buy American coal and pay for it in sterling? Why, therefore, have we been obliged to pay in dollars for as much as 400,000 tons of American coal, notwithstanding the fact that there has been a continuing American surplus of bituminous coal throughout the last 18 months?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I do not think that my hon. Friend should chide me for doing what he suggested. Arrangements for imports of coal for sterling were made at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY (RETAIL TARIFFS)

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when he expects to receive the report of the review by the British Electricity Authority of the principles recommended by the Retail Tariffs Committee in the light of the experience by boards of standardisation of tariffs, which he has asked for.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The British Electricity Authority have already informed my right hon. Friend of the results of the review carried out by their Retail Tariffs Committee. Most of the modifications in tariffs suggested by the Committee have been accepted by the area boards and are being made, but standardisation is still going on and the Committee is considering what further recommendations to make in the light of the additional experience now becoming available.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Will that report be available to the public or to Members of this House? Is my right hon. Friend aware that standardisation is proceeding very slowly and that very curious anomalies exist, particularly in the region of the South-Eastern Electricity Board?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The report would not normally be available publicly because it is the report of a committee of the industry. We are aware of anomalies, but there are fewer now than there were six years ago, when up to 600 different tariffs were in operation in what is now the area of an electricity board.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (RETIREMENT AGE)

Mr. Jay: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what general directions he has given to the nationalised industries for which he is responsible instructing them to comply with the recommendations affecting the retirement age contained in paragraphs 50–52 and 65–67 of the First


Report of the National Advisory Committee on the Employment of Older Men and Women.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: None, Sir. Without any direction, the boards of the nationalised industries have said that they will give effect to the recommendations in the report so far as is practicable.

Mr. Jay: Is the Minister following this matter up to see what actually happens, and is he satisfied with the response so far?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Yes, Sir; and by way of illustration I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the other day I was talking to a surface foreman of a colliery who had been working at that same pit for 62 years.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING (ACCOUNTS)

Mr. Gibson: asked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the accounts of the House of Commons Refreshment Department for the year ended 31st December, 1954.

Mr. William A. Steward (Chairman of the Kitchen Committee): My Committee hope to submit their report to the House early in March. Subject to audit, the accounts for the year ended 31st December, 1954, show a profit of £425 1s. 7d., before taking into consideration any sums received or due from the Treasury by way of grant-in-aid in respect of wages and other costs incurred when the House is in Recess. Any sums received from the Treasury will thus become available for reducing the accumulated deficits of previous years.
This is the first time the Refreshment Department has paid its way without Treasury grant-in-aid since 1944, and I should like to pay a tribute to the members of my committee and the manager and staff of the Refreshment Department for their co-operation in achieving this encouraging result.

Mr. Gibson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we shall receive that report with a good deal of satisfaction? Will he see that certain newspapers which have

specialised in attacking Members of Parliament on this matter receive a copy of the report when it is issued? Can he assure the House that a considerable proportion of this improvement has not been secured by reduction in the numbers of staffs, or in the wages and conditions under which they are employed? Can he say whether the joint consultative committee which it was suggested should be set up to enable the staff to have a say in these matters is working, and how succesfully?

Mr. Steward: I will leave it to the Press to be as fair as I think they will be. Relationships between the staff and my Committee, through the staff representatives, have never been better, and I have every reason to believe that the staff will be as pleased with the result of the year as I think most hon. Members of this House are. The welcome result has mainly been brought about by increased revenue from the sponsoring by hon. Members of parties during weekends.

Mr. J. N. Browne: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the whole House is very grateful to him for the alteration he has made in the facilities, and that this astonishing result brings into sharp perspective the difference between Labour theory and Conservative practice?

Mr. Beswick: I join in paying tribute to the Committee of which the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Steward) is Chairman, but is he aware that not all members of the staff share his optimism about their present relationships with the Kitchen Committee? There has undoubtedly been a severe deterioration in conditions since this side of the House was in power. May I also ask whether there has not been a loss of dignity to this Mother of Parliaments when, in order to reduce our deficit, we hire out these rooms at the Palace of Westminster for the purpose of having fancy dress parties on a Saturday afternoon?

Mr. Steward: The hon. Member is wrong in his reference to relations between the staff and the Committee. All complaints that cannot be handled by the manager are immediately reported to the staff sub-committee, which then


meets the staff representatives; and the problem is settled. To my knowledge, there is no point of dissatisfaction which has not been satisfactorily settled. With regard to week-end parties, I can assure the House that the people who have attended those parties have been impressed with the dignity of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, have been impressed with the dignity of the House—and have gone away much more Parliament-minded.

Mr. Isaacs: Can the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee state that the staff are properly and adequately remunerated for the time they spend serving at these parties on Friday and Saturday evenings?

Mr. Steward: Yes, I can say that with all assurance. First of all, those members of the staff whose hours of duty, by reason of attending during the week-ends, exceed those provided for under the Catering Wages Act, are paid overtime. In addition, they share equally in the distribution of the 10 per cent. gratuity which is added to all bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS

Fractured Mains (Mining Subsidence)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he can state the extent to which gas mains fracture in areas where subsidence is prevalent and marked as compared with other areas.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: No, Sir.

Dr. Stross: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, such fractures are at least four times as frequent as in normal areas where there is no subsidence? Can he tell the House when the considerable loss to such areas—as well as ill health and, sometimes, loss of life—will be accepted as a national responsibility and not one to be left solely to the Coal Board?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: My right hon. Friend is aware of no statistics that will help the hon. Member in this connection. I can tell him, however, that the loss of life from this particular cause is not very great. There were five fatalities altogether in 1953 from this cause.

Capital Development, Northern Area

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what schemes for capita] development in the Northern Gas Board area he has at present under consideration.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The Northern Gas Board's general programme of develop. ment provides for an increase of about 20 per cent. in gas supplies over the next five years.

Miss Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that, during the recent cold spell, gas consumers in the North of England felt that they had been swindled? Will he see that, in future, there are sufficient gas supplies during cold spells to avoid a repetition of that experience? It was a jolly old swindle on the consumers.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I am not aware of that feeling among my hon. Friend's constituents—

Miss Ward: No. It is the whole of the North.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: —but my right hon. Friend's responsibility in this matter is to approve the general programme of development by the area boards and not the particular projects with which they may be concerned. I can, however, reassure my hon. Friend to the extent that considerable fresh supplies of gas will become available from new projects now coming into operation. In addition, the Northern Board has applied for, and received, authority for an additional extension to its projects.

Miss Ward: By next winter?

Mr. Robens: Is not the matter which the hon. Lady has raised a matter for the Gas Consultative Council, and has it been referred there?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I cannot say whether it has been referred to the Consultative Council.

Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents say that the gas industry ought to have been nationalised 20 years ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABADAN OIL

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what quantities of Abadan oil have so far arrived in the United Kingdom; and what revised estimate he has made of the tonnage of Abadan oil now expected for United Kingdom consumption in each of the years 1955, 1956 and 1957.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: 15,200 tons of crude oil since the new Agreement came into force. For the reasons given by my right hon. Friend in reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 8th November last, the future consumption of Abadan oil in the United Kingdom cannot be estimated.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): In the debate on the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Newport and Monmouth) Order shortly after 3 o'clock last Thursday morning, the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) said that the Boundary Commission had not originally proposed any change in the Newport and Monmouth constituencies, and that the proposals to which the draft Order gave effect were incorporated in the final proposals in the Commission's Report. I said that the hon. Member was wrong. I now find that the hon. Member was, in fact, right, and I wish to offer to him and to the House a sincere and complete apology.
The alteration of the local government boundary, to which the draft Order adjusts the constituency boundary, was made by the Newport Corporation Act, 1954. The alteration will not take effect for local government purposes until 1st April, 1955, but the Act which makes the alteration was passed last July. That was why I believed that the hon. Member was wrong. I find that, in fact, however, the Boundary Commission published on 29th July—the day before the Newport Corporation Act received the Royal Assent—a provisional proposal that the Newport and Monmouth constituencies should not be altered. Subsequently, the Newport Corporation asked the Commis-

sion whether it intended to take account of the extension of the borough boundary, and the Commission accordingly did so, and recommended the adjustment in its Report.
I am extremely sorry that the information available to me at a moment's notice on Thursday morning was incomplete and, therefore, misleading, and that, in consequence, I unwittingly misled the hon. Member and the House.

Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I understand that it is not possible to comment on a personal statement, and while I am sure that everyone appreciates the frankness with which the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged his error, may I ask whether I would be in order in asking the Leader of the House whether he will now resubmit this Order to the House, in view of the fact that it was passed through the House on the basis of information which is now shown to be misleading?

Mr. Speaker: Not on a personal explanation. There is nothing controversial in that.

Mr. Foot: Could you tell me, Sir, how it would be possible for me to raise this matter with the Leader of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I could not say off-hand. The hon. Member will probably find some way of doing it if he is determined to do so.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

The Right Honourable William Rankine Milligan, Q.C., for Edinburgh, North.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings of the Committee on Northern Ireland [Money] and on the Motions in the name of Sir Cedric Drewe relating to the Select Committees on Estimates and Private Bill Procedure exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crook-shank.]

Orders of the Day — COCOS ISLANDS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.35 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have to inform the House that I have it in Command from Her Majesty to acquaint the House that Her Majesty places Her Prerogative and interests, so far as concerns the matter dealt with by the Bill. at the disposal of Parliament.
On 6th December, 1825, Captain John Clunies Ross, the master and part-owner of the "Borneo," described as a trading vessel and "Cruizer" for the suppression of piracy, dropped anchor at Horsburgh Island in the Cocos group. From this date the modern history of the Cocos Islands begins. According to the most reliable accounts, the Cocos or Keeling Islands were discovered in 1608 or 1609 by Captain William Keeling, holding a commission from King James I, in the service of the East India Company.
The Cocos group is an atoll, consisting of a number of small islands in the Indian Ocean. It was uninhabited when discovered and, except for an occasional visit, it remained so until Captain Clunies Ross decided to make his home there after his marriage. It was from his descendants, who, to this day, are the holders under an indenture of the whole territory, that were born the so-called "Kings of Cocos," who virtually ruled the islands for 117 years until the appointment of a military administrator by Admiral Lord Mountbatten, in 1944.
The foundation of the population, apart from some 20 white men belonging to Captain Clunies Ross's party, were laid by the arrival in the islands, shortly after the "Borneo's" second visit in 1827, of a remarkable character called Alexander Hare, in the service of the East India Company, a former Governor of Bangermasin in Borneo, and British Commissioner for Borneo during the Napoleonic wars. He brought with him a sort of oriental harem, together with a retinue of semi-slaves numbering about 200. They were, of course, Malays. Many of them

succeeded in escaping from Hare's clutches, and they dwindled in number to a considerable extent. They remained in the islands, and from time to time were added to them people from almost every territory in the Indian Ocean and even from such distant places as China, India and the Cape of Good Hope. By 1946, the population had reached 1,660.
The territory was proclaimed part of the British Dominions in 1857 by Captain Freemantle of H.M.S. "Juno," who formally appointed Ross the second as Governor of the Settlement. As it so happened, this was, in fact, due to what we would now, no doubt, call a Departmental error, as the proclamation was intended to refer to the Cocos group in the Andaman Islands, and not to the Cocos and Keeling Islands at all.
In 1878, the Cocos Islands were placed under the Governor of Ceylon, and in 1886 under the Straits Settlements. It was in the years following this, under Ross the third, that the Settlement entered into its heyday. Cocos copra was said to command the highest price in any market; coconuts, coconut oil, dyes and other products were sold, and a small shipbuilding industry flourished, but from then on the economy of the territory began to go down.
In 1903, the Settlement was formally incorporated in the Settlement of Singapore. At the turn of the century, deep-sea cables connecting Africa, Asia and Australia were laid to the islands. The Settlement had its moment of fame in the First World War when, as a result of an emergency signal sent out from the islands, the German raider "Emden" was caught and sunk by H.M.A.S. "Sydney" after a German landing party had destroyed most of the installations on shore.
In the Second World War the islands again had their share of shelling and bombardment from the air by the Japanese, but were never occupied. At the end of the war a force of about 3,000 troops were stationed in the Cocos, and in 1945 a 2,500-yard airstrip was constructed for the use of heavy bombers of the Royal Air Force. It was, in fact, used by the R.A.F. for only a very short time in 1946.
In 1948, the question of the continued maintenance of the airstrip arose. The


Australian Defence Department considered that the airstrip should be retained as it was an important link in an alternative route between the United Kingdom and Australia which, in time of emergency, might be of great strategic importance. The United Kingdom Chiefs of Staff, on the other hand, while they considered that the development of the airstrip would make the Cocos Islands a valuable base for the operation of aircraft in the event of any campaign in South-East Asia, did not feel able, on strategic grounds alone, to recommend the expenditure of United Kingdom funds on the development and maintenance of an airstrip in peacetime.
The Australian Government, therefore, themselves undertook the responsibility for the development and maintenance of the airstrip, but they urged upon Her Majesty's Government that, in view of the large sums which they would need to spend, and also as a matter of convenience to themselves, it would be desirable to transfer the islands to their own administration. This proposal was also administratively convenient to the Government of Singapore which found it difficult to maintain an administrative officer in the islands, where there was very little for him to do, having regard to the very small number of the inhabitants.
It was in these circumstances that the Labour Government decided to agree to the Australian Government's proposal to transfer to Australia the administration of the Cocos Islands.
On 22nd June, 1951, the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) announced, in answer to a Written Question, that, for the reasons which I have already outlined, the Government had agreed to the Australian Government's proposals. He said that on purely practical grounds it was desirable that, whichever Government controlled the airstrip should also control the islands. He went on to say that the rights of the Clunies Ross family would be kept unimpaired.
As for the inhabitants, who, by then, numbered only 1,200, the right hon. Gentleman explained that a considerable number had indicated their desire to leave the islands and that since 1948 emigration to North Borneo had been going on. He concluded his reply by saying that the

Australian Government had agreed to enact legislation giving Australian citizenship, or the option to acquire it, to those who elected to remain in the islands after the transfer. This policy was endorsed by Her Majesty's present Government when they took office.
Hon. Members may wonder why, having regard to this decision, it has taken four years to conclude the final arrangements for this transfer. The main difficulty has been due to the legal problem of deciding exactly how the transfer should be effected. There have been transfers of territory from the United Kingdom to the Australian Government in the past, carried out by Instrument under the Prerogative. On the other hand, doubt has been expressed as to whether this procedure was wholly satisfactory.
As a result, discussions took place between Her Majesty's Government in this country and the Australian Government about the best method to be pursued—whether to proceed by Order in Council, by Order in Council under the Prerogative, or by an Act of Parliament. It was finally decided to adopt the latter as the most satisfactory and completely watertight method, if I may put it like that, and also, I have no doubt, the most acceptable method to the House.
It has involved, in the first place, the passage by the Australian Government of a Bill giving their request and consent to the enactment by the United Kingdom Government of legislation to enable Her Majesty the Queen to place the Cocos Islands under the authority of the Commonwealth of Australia. This Bill was introduced in the Australian Parliament on 2nd November by my right hon. Friend the Minister for External Affairs in Australia, if I may so describe him, having had the honour of serving under him in the Middle East for 18 months. In introducing it, Mr. Casey covered briefly the main points to which I have already alluded. This Bill has now passed all its stages.
In asking the House to grant a Second Reading to the present Bill, I think it is desirable that I should comment on the following additional points. In agreeing to this transfer, Her Majesty's Government, naturally, have given the greatest care and attention to the status and interests of the local inhabitants. Since the


negotiations were started, a very large proportion of them have emigrated to North Borneo or elsewhere. There now remain only between 300 and 400. The latest figure, which was given to me this morning by someone recently arrived from Australia, is 303.
At the same time, it is obviously necessary that all those who decide to remain should be afforded every safeguard about their future. This matter has been fully discussed with the Australian Government and I am quite satisfied, from the assurances which they have given us, that the interests of the remaining local inhabitants of the Cocos Group will be fully safeguarded. The islanders will, of course, retain their United Kingdom citizenship. In addition, they will enjoy the right to opt for acquiring Australian citizenship. Islanders born after the transfer will automatically become Australian citizens, but they will remain British subjects, with all the rights attaching thereto.
The Government of Singapore have also promised to make special arrangements so that the islanders will continue to enjoy their existing rights of free entry into Singapore. At this point I might perhaps mention that when the negotiations were first under discussion in 1951, unofficial members of the Executive Council of Singapore were consulted about the transfer, and agreed. Should any more islanders wish for facilities to remove to North Borneo, the Government of North Borneo will be willing to admit them, subject, of course, to their usual immigration regulations. In fact, in view of the shortage of population in North Borneo, I have no doubt that any who choose to go there will be very welcome.
The rights of the Clunies Ross family will remain unaltered. The solicitors to the family have been kept in touch with the position, and they will continue to be informed of developments.
Further, the Royal Navy operate a wireless station on Direction Island in the Cocos Group, and the Australian Government have agreed that the operation and tenure of this station shall remain undisturbed by the transfer. The Admiralty are satisfied with this assurance.
In addition, there is a dispute between the Admiralty and the Clunies Ross family about the Admiralty's occupation of some of the land on Direction Island. Negotiations for the lease of the disputed

part are nearing completion and the position of neither party will be affected by the transfer.
Cable and Wireless Ltd. operate a cable relay station on Direction Island. The Australian Government have agreed that arrangements will be made in accordance with the Telegraphs Agreement of 11th May, 1948, for the Overseas Communications Commission (Australia) to acquire the interests of Cable and Wireless at an agreed price if the Australian Government so desire. They have also agreed, pending such acquisition, to extend to Cable and Wireless Ltd. the same facilities for operating their services as the Singapore Government have given in the past. Cable and Wireless have stated that they are satisfied with this undertaking. All the above assurances will be embodied in an exchange of letters between the appropriate Australian Minister and the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Canberra.
This Bill is an enabling Bill which, after reciting the request and consent of the Australian Government to the transfer, gives power to Her Majesty to put it into effect by Order in Council. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, who will be replying to this debate, will deal with any points which I have not covered. I hope, however, that in the light of the explanations I have given, the House will have no hesitation in giving the Bill its Second Reading.
I do not think that even the most unsentimental among us can contemplate without a pang of regret the passing of this group of islands, which were discovered by an Englishman and administered for nearly 120 years by Scotsmen, from our own into other hands. Still, British Governments, over the last 100 years, have not perhaps as much right to be proud of what they themselves have done for the Cocos as they have in some of our other territories. For, ever since they took on the formal administration of the islands in 1944, administrators have been there only at irregular intervals. It is, in fact, mainly the Clunies Ross family who deserve the credit.
Now Ross the fifth reigns in Cocos, even if he is no longer Governor either in name or in fact. It is he who, as pater familias, continues to watch over the interests of the islanders, whose ancestors


have shared the destinies of the Cocos Islands with his own. It was he who, with his wife, had the honour to receive Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh during their short visit to the Settlement last year. I have no doubt that when the transfer takes place, he and his family will continue to exercise their influence in the interests of the inhabitants as heretofore.
I repeat, that in other circumstances it would be with a pang of regret that we in this country saw the Cocos Islands go. But the knowledge that once this Bill is passed administrative authority there will be exercised by Her Majesty's Government of the Commonwealth of Australia must comfort and reassure any who may have doubts or regrets; for, in making this transfer we could surely entrust the destinies of these loyal British islands to no safer hands.

Mr. M. Follick: Is not one of the reasons for this transfer that Australia wants a direct line with Cape Town?

Mr. Hopkinson: As I said in my opening remarks, strategic considerations—certainly air communications—played a major part.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: I suppose there is no one in the House, and very few in the country, for whom little islands lying in the middle of the ocean do not exercise a very great fascination. Most of us have read "Treasure Island," "Coral Island" and similar books in our youth. I think all of us will share the feelings of the Minister, possibly a sense of regret and certainly a sense of sentiment attaching to the passing of these small islands from our jurisdiction.
Most of the islands that have been taken from time to time by this country have had very little importance. There are large numbers of islands dotted about all over the world and they are represented on the map simply by red marks. They make little contribution to the welfare of this country except that we have the privilege of knowing that they belong to us. But of recent years some islands have assumed a very remarkable importance, an importance which was quite unexpected when they were first taken

over—the importance of becoming areodromes in the midst of the ocean.
The Cocos Islands are among these and for that reason the Australian Government wanted to have them. For that reason this Bill has been introduced. As the Minister said, this is a small Bill, but it is a very important Bill. We are glad that there has been a long time before it has been brought before the House so that sufficient discussions could be undertaken and a sufficient degree of importance attached to it. We are concerned with the welfare of only a very few people—the Minister said that at the moment there are only 303 there—and most of them, no doubt, are uncivilised—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—many of them are uncivilized—

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Does that include the Clunies Ross family?

Mr. Dugdale: if they are civilised they are a very simple people who have not got very highly developed Western standards of civilisation. I am not insulting these people.

Mr. Bernard Braine: The right hon. Gentleman should not speak if he does not know.

Mr. Follick: On a point of order. As probably the only hon. Member of the House who has been there, I must say that my right hon. Friend is grossly exaggerating. There are no signs of lack of civilisation.

Mr. Speaker: That is certainly not a point of order.

Mr. Dugdale: I am very happy to withdraw what I said. What I meant was that they are not people with standards that we are used to. Many of them lead a very simple life. We might remember the words of Mr. Gladstone, who said, many years ago:
Remember that the sanctity of life in the hill villages of the Afghans, among the winter snows, is as inviolable in the eye of Almighty God as can be your own.
That is a point worth remembering. These people are in an outlying island, a simple people, and we have a responsibility for them. We want to see their welfare properly protected.
It may be said that if they were to be transferred within the Commonwealth


that would ensure their protection, but I do not think that that is so these days. Unfortunately, there is at least one country within the Commonwealth to which they could not be transferred without feelings of very deep concern among hon. Members on this side of the House and, I think, among hon. Members opposite. They are to be transferred to the Australian Government, but were they to be transferred to the Government concerned with this particular route—the route between Australia and South Africa—it would be quite another matter.
We want to be certain that the people who are to be transferred to Australia will receive the treatment we expect they will get from the Australian people, which is much better treatment than they would have got had they been transferred to South Africa. In about three weeks' time there is due to be a great removal of population in South Africa—a removal from Johannesburg against the people's will. The people are to be moved—

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member must not go into these matters, which are the concern of the Union Parliament and not of ourselves.

Mr. Dugdale: With great respect, Sir, I was only using that as an illustration to show that we cannot just say that any transfer within the Commonwealth is a matter which does not really concern us very much and that all will be well with the local inhabitants.
If the transfer had, in fact, been made to another member of the Commonwealth it might have been very bad for the inhabitants, and we do not want to consider this as a precedent. That is the important point I want to make about transfers being made of other protectorates and territories in the Commonwealth. We need to be particularly careful that this is not regarded as a precedent.
When the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations replies to the debate I want him to be a little more explicit about the guarantees he has received from the Australian Government. In particular, we want to be certain that there will be no colour bar within these islands. We want to be quite certain that there is to be no forced labour. We also want to be quite certain that there will be full educational

opportunity and that, eventually, there will be an opportunity for these people to have adequate representation.
Finally, we want to be certain that they will be allowed, if they so desire, not only to go to Singapore but to their own mother country, which will be their mother country of Australia. We presume that that will be the case, because they will have Australian citizenship. We want to make quite certain about that, and we hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that that is so.
In passing this short Bill—a Bill to which we on this side of the House give our approval—let us make quite certain that the inhabitants of these islands have a future at least as good as they would have had if they had remained under our rule. There are only a few of them. They are very defenceless and unable to speak for themselves. We have to speak for them. I would remind the House of the words of a great Englishman who said many years ago:
Every he hath a life to live as every other he.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: In view of some of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), I think it would be a pity if we allowed this small but, nevertheless, important Bill to pass without an opinion being voiced from this side of the House.
On the face of it, this transfer is a perfectly logical development. It is an extension of developments which have been going on for quite a number of years. I think that it was before the 1914–1919 War that our own British Protectorate of New Guinea was transferred to the new Australian Commonwealth.

Mr. Follick: After the war.

Mr. Braine: After 1918, the former German territories in the South-West Pacific were handed over under the League of Nations Mandate to Australia and New Zealand, and today, Nauru, which, I believe, is not far from the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, is jointly administered by the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.

Mr. Follick: As we have mentioned South Africa. I might point out that we


transferred to South Africa in 1921 Walfisch Bay which was one of the finest ports in the whole of South-West Africa.

Mr. Braine: I think that that is geographically and in every other sense a little outside the orbit of our discussion today, and I do not want to be drawn by the hon. Gentleman, although, as the House fully knows, he has very intimate knowledge of all these remote places.
These islands are quite clearly of strategic importance to Australia upon whom, in the conditions of the modern world, the defence of our lines of communication across the Indian Ocean would probably fall. I think that there is a strong case for regional arrangements of this kind.
I do not think that, subject to the safeguards being adequate, any one of us need regret this transfer, because the islands are merely passing to the sovereignty of another member of the Commonwealth. They are not leaving the family. It is not inappropriate to remark, having regard to some of the things said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich, that they are passing under the sovereignty of a member of the Commonwealth family that already has a fine administrative record in New Guinea.
I agree, of course, that we are transferring not land but people, and even if there are only 303 of them their welfare is very much our concern. Because of that I am glad indeed to hear from my right hon. Friend that the Cocos Islanders will retain their British citizenship and can opt for Australian citizenship, and that they will have the right of free entry either into British North Borneo or Singapore. These safeguards are, in my view, adequate, and for that reason I welcome the Bill.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. F. Beswick: The Minister emphasised the importance of this transfer in the matter of military air strategy and the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) touched on this reason, but I think that it would be a pity to pass the Bill if we did not emphasise the great importance to civil aviation of these islands. Indeed, I thought that that was the prime reason for this transfer.
I was rather sorry that the Minister did not find time, in his very interesting speech, to make reference to the enterprise and initiative of Qantas in developing this route from Australia to the Continent of Africa. I think it would have been generous if he had mentioned a name such as Captain Ambrose, one of the great band of Australian airmen, who undertook the pioneering which made possible this new Commonwealth air route.

Mr. Hopkinson: Communications are still going on, and my hon. Friend will have something to say about them a little later.

Mr. Beswick: I think the House would be fully aware of the very special importance of the Cocos Islands in these Commonwealth air communications if we look at the map. We see that there is a most strange and curious significance in this particular route, running from the Continent of Australia to the Continent of Africa. Hitherto, the lines of communication from Australia and New Zealand had been wholly through Asia. It is an understandable, if somewhat exaggerated fact, that the Australians have been very conscious of this position of living, as they conceive it to be, under, shall I say, the shadow of Asia and the South-East Asia islands.
I have heard Australians describe their great Continent as being only another island off Asia. As a result of this particular route they will be directly linked with other member nations of the British Commonwealth, not only the Union of South African States, but also to the huge potential market of the Federation of Central African States. Undoubtedly, along this air route will follow more and more trade, and it may be that this development will be of great importance in the years to come.
I would add only one other word. I think, like the hon. Member for Billericay, that we rather pricked up our ears when the Minister used the word "passing" in referring to the transfer of these territories from United Kingdom responsibility to Australian responsibility. I feel that in no sense are they going out of the British climate and atmosphere and I only regret that it should have been necessary to have had any legislation on this matter. I should like to see some


sort of Commonwealth constitution within which we might possibly hold in common some of these territories. I see no reason why different members of the British Commonwealth should not share equally not only in the privileges but the responsibilities of the administration of these different territories.
I am sure that in the development of the British Commonwealth we have to extend the field of common responsibility and, indeed, common ownership, and it is only in that sense that I have any regret at all about this Bill being necessary. As it is, in present circumstances, I feel that we should give it every opportunity for a speedy passage.

4.10 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I gather from the contribution of the hon. Members who have spoken so far that there are two considerations behind this proposed transfer—the civil aviation consideration and the strategic consideration. Important as they are, they are not more important than the considerations of the people themselves, who are to be transferred in this way.
Those of us who have not been to the Cocos Islands and who, like a great many other people, had to rush to the gazetteer to find out (a) where they are and (b) what this is all about, nevertheless are encouraged in the knowledge now that the Cocos Islanders, few though they may be, are, in fact, civilised people. The suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) that they were uncivilised people has been refuted with great vehemence. We know that they are civilised people and that they will be transferred to a people who, we believe, despite their appalling licensing laws, are civilised people; and, therefore, it will be a transference of civilised people to civilised people.
We know that in the Cocos Islands there is a school, and we appreciate that under our indirect administration the Cocos Islanders have been educated to those spheres of responsibility such as working on the airfield, in the office of Cable and Wireless, and so on. One assumes that the Australian Government will, as its responsibility, continue with the education of the Cocos Islanders in the way that we have done. What concerns me, if it does not concern anybody

else in this House, is that that is only so far and not good enough.
It is true that the Cocos Islanders will be able, as we have heard, to go to Borneo and to Singapore and will be able to come to this country, but they will not, I am afraid, be permitted to go to Australia. It may be argued that they do not want to go to Australia. We have seen in the last 50 years—

Mr. Raymond Gower: It was clearly said that the Cocos Islanders would be given the chance to opt for Australian, in addition to British, citizenship.

Sir L. Plummer: Yes, I think they will have Australian citizenship, but I am not sure whether in this case Australian citizenship will carry the right, irrespective of colour, to go to Australia. If this right is to be granted, if the Australians say that in this case the "White Australia" policy is to be waived and the Cocos Islander will be as free to go to Australia as to Singapore or to this country, I shall be deeply satisfied; for I am confident that the Australian Government will treat the Cocos Islanders, so far as its administration of the Colony is concerned, just as generously, benevolently and disinterestedly as we would.
I am directing my remarks to finding out whether the granting of Australian citizenship gives the right for the Cocos Islanders to go to Australia. If it does, we are witnessing a revolutionary change in Australia's domestic policy, which has the support of every political party in Australia. I am not entering into an argument about interfering with Australia's rights in this matter; she does what she likes in her own country.
I know that Australians argue that they have never had any race riots or lynching bees or the mass disturbances as in South Africa, and have never suffered Mau Mau, and that because of their present "White Australia" policy they have a happy, integrated white population. I suggest, however, that these arguments would not necessarily appeal to all the Cocos Islanders if there were a repetition, for example, of the appalling cyclone which 50 years ago decimated the islands, destroying half a million coconut palms and leaving only five buildings standing. It was the worst recorded cyclone in history.
We know what weather can do. We have lived through some of the worst recorded weather in history, and we know that Nature does repeat these terrible tragedies. Let us suppose, for example, that the Cocos Islander who wants to leave the islands to go to Australia makes application and then finds that he is not to be admitted. Would he not then say that the country standing in the relationship of paterfamilias will not allow him to come in? Would he not, therefore, feel a grievance against us and against this Parliament for having transferred him in those circumstances?
The position of coloured people all over the world is today so tense that if we quite unwittingly commit an offence or an affront to one group of coloured people, we do it automatically to all coloured peoples. If in this case the bell were to toll for the Cocos Islanders, it would toll for coloured peoples throughout the world. Our job, it seems to me, is essentially to try to abolish the colour bar and to remove wherever we possibly can the racial tensions that exist, undoubtedly, in other parts of the Commonwealth. The meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers today gives to the Secretary of State for the Colonies an opportunity of making representations to Mr. Menzies of the way that some of us here feel about the future of these people.
If, as I believe I am right in saying, Australian citizenship will not give the right of entry to Australia for the Cocos Islander, that is a luxury which the Australians are perfectly entitled to give themselves—that is, the luxury of saying, "We will not have these people in." But it could also be put to that great statesman, Mr. Menzies, that there is another obligation: "If you can afford that luxury, you can afford the luxury of being supergenerous to the races of the world who need your assistance."
If we are to be told that the Cocos Islanders will not be allowed to enter Australia and that it is impossible to alter the "White Australia" policy, I suggest that one of the ways of trying to right that act is for Australia to make a more than generous contribution to the United Nations Agencies, which are trying desperately to tackle problems similar to this all over the world.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but I should like briefly to take up one or two points that were raised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick). I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, who will reply to the debate, will deal with the points which the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) has raised. I should hope that in this matter, which, as the hon. Member for Deptford stressed, obviously has very tricky aspects, every attempt will be made to secure rights for the people who will be affected.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge referred to a matter of the greatest importance. He pointed out that at present a transfer of territory in this way is necessary. Certainly, it seems that our Commonwealth system is still most inadequate. The territory which will be transferred will now be administered, presumably, by officials of the External Affairs Department of the Australian Government, while our own Colonial Territories are administered by people in our own Colonial Service.
Carrying a stage further the most interesting argument of the hon. Member for Uxbridge, it seems that our ultimate ideal should be an inter-Commonwealth service in which people from all the different self-governing countries of the Commonwealth should serve in far greater numbers than they do now, and that such a transfer as this one today should be rendered quite unnecessary. In that sense I am hopeful that this may be one of the last Bills of this kind, as it is, indeed, one of the first, that we shall have to pass through this House. Let us hope that when such a case occurs again, some such instrument or document as the hon. Member for Uxbridge implied will be substituted. I certainly hope, however, that the House will pass this Bill.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. M. Follick: I am glad to be able to intervene in this debate, because things have been said today about different parts of the world which need correcting. I hope that in correcting them I shall not embitter anyone.
In the first place, this transfer displays to the world that the transfer of a territory from one national sovereignty to an-


other can take place peacefully between friends. All over the world there are territories which ought to be so transferred, but national pride prevents that happening. So we, the British, are giving to the world, perhaps unwittingly, an indication of what ought to be done on a large scale. We want peace and friendliness in the world, we want to do the best for the territories themselves, and if the people concerned are not so well off under one sovereignty as another, then a peaceful transfer ought to take place despite national pride.
The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) referred to Australia. I do not know whether he has been there, but when I was there thousands and thousands of the islanders used to go to Queensland every year for the sugar crop; indeed, that crop could hardly be reaped without the islanders. In the same way all the great fruit farmers in New Zealand are Chinese. So I do not know how my hon. Friend can say that the Australians do not like people of other races to go there. In fact, if he went out on to the stations in Australia he would find that the Chinese, as an honest trader, is respected; the person who is not respected in Australia is the Japanese.

Sir L. Plummer: I do not know when my hon. Friend went to Australia last; but is he aware that in Northern Queensland the sugar cane is cut by Italians because Chinese and Kanaka boys are not admitted, since it is an established practime in Australia not to admit people from the islands? Also, some of the Chinese living in Australia went there more than a generation ago.

Mr. Follick: That may be so now, but it was not so in 1920.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: That was a generation ago.

Mr. Follick: I admit that I have not been to that country since 1920. As for combined Commonwealth responsibility for all territories, I have advocated it in this House over and over again. It is time that the entire Commonwealth became responsible for the imperial part of our great Empire.
I believe that this transfer is a thoroughly good thing for the Cocos Islands, which are of inestimable importance to Australia. I interrupted the Minister to point out that the Australian

wanted a civil air line which would be free from any military happenings or unfriendliness in Asia, one which would give them a direct line from Western Australia through to the Cocos Islands, Mauritius and South Africa.
I found the Cocos Islanders the friendliest people I have ever met. It is untrue to say that they are uncivilised; I found them childlike.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: What year was that?

Mr. Follick: In this case, Mr. Speaker, I am on firm ground, because if those people were not uncivilised many years ago they certainly would not be uncivilised now. During the life of the Labour Government we saw the transfer of Newfoundland from Great Britain to Canada. When I was in Newfoundland, last year, I went up to see the new iron-workings. I found satisfaction about the transfer to Canada, which has been of great benefit to the Newfoundlanders, though it was fought strongly at the time.
The great merchant captains—which is what Ross. Brooke of Sarawak and others were—established these territories in different parts of the world and, in time, those territories became incorporated in our system. Now our system should be incorporated into the much larger system of the entire Commonwealth. I welcome this Bill, therefore, and I like everything about it. As I have said, it is a demonstration to the world of how a peaceful people can so understand the rights of individual territories that they raise no objection to the transfer of a territory from one sovereignty to another. By this Bill we are giving this territory to a Dominion Parliament without misgiving and without loss of pride, and I hope that it will have the unanimous blessing of Parliament.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: This Bill has come before us with all the innocence of a wide-eyed child and in some senses it is cloaked with a venerable Liberalism. After all, here are we, a sovereign Parliament, handing over a territory to Australia, which has another sovereign Parliament. And we are saying, in effect, "Your need is greater than ours." It all sounds very fine, and certainly innocent, but I believe, as some hon.
Members have indicated already, that we should be unwise to give the Bill a Second Reading without receiving most definite assurances about the welfare of the inhabitants.
The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) was forthright in expressing the hope that the interests of the islanders will be attended to. I want an assurance that their interests have been considered. It may well be that they have, but we should have an assurance on this matter. I know that there are only a few hundred inhabitants and my knowledge of the Cocos Islands does not come even from 1920; it comes from reading the most interesting accounts of certain circumnavigating yachtsmen who are attracted to those idyllic islands where the Clunies Ross family has held sway for so long, and where, apparently, money is not considered necessary. However, I note with some apprehension that 300 or more of the islanders have already gone to North Borneo. Why? Are they frightened that something will happen when the transfer takes place? We should have the most definite assurance on this point, and I am sure that we shall have it from the Under-Secretary of State when he replies to the debate.
Transference of territory from one part to another part of the Commonwealth may not be serious in some instances; but it may be in others, and all our fears about this and kindred matters boil down to a realisation that there is here an extremely serious problem which is not just one of colour. After all, with colour come differences in outlook, customs and institutions and, it may very well be. in progress towards what we call civilisation. I am not a biologist or an anthropologist, and I should not care to lay down any very strict laws as to whether any of these apprehensions about the differences between the races are well founded; but it is only realistic to appreciate that some people honestly believe that there are differences.
Therefore, it seems to me that the problem of colour or race, or whatever else we like to call it, is one which we in a multi-racial Commonwealth should be prepared to face honestly and courageously. Are we doing it? Is there any sort of machinery for that purpose? One does not like the word "machinery"

in connection with the British Commonwealth, but is there means whereby we in the various parts of the Commonwealth, whether our skins are brown, black or white, are coming together to face the problem honestly and courageously? I doubt it.
I should have felt far easier about passing from the Bill had the Government said, "Here, at this moment, is the Commonwealth Conference in session. We are going to put it to the Conference, not as an ultimatum but as a friendly notice, that we intend at some not far distant future to ask all our fellow members in the Commonwealth to come together to see whether we can hammer out a principle about the great question of race." It is one of the most serious questions which the world has to face today.
I should like to see the great example in co-operation which the British Commonwealth has shown to the world extended—let us at least see whether we can extend it—to cover the tackling of this infinitely important problem of race. If the Government had told us that the Bill had focussed attention on this great problem, and that we were going to give a lead in our own Commonwealth Conference, I should have felt happier about passing from the Bill. I hope that some words will be said on behalf of the Government to show that we need not be without hope in this direction.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I do not know whether a Scotsman should be allowed to speak in this debate or not—

Mr. Follick: What! With the name Ross!

Mr. Ross: —but I wish to refer to a rather outlandish part of my own clan. Although the Cocos Islands were discovered by an Englishman, they have been ruled for many years by a Scotsman, and so it is appropriate that I should take part in the discussion.
The right hon. Gentleman said with reference to the well-being of the inhabitants that we had nothing much about which to pride ourselves in relation to our administration and that tributes should be paid to the people of the Clunies Ross family who had carried on the burden of government and day-to-day contact with


the people for so long and that the wellbeing of the people—this is important—was more dependent on the continuation of the interest of that family than upon anything else.
I am in a difficulty. I welcome the opportunity of discussing the matter. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), I do not want the present position to be changed. My hon. Friend may find himself in the unenviable position of being quoted by the supporters of the Malan policy in South Africa. There are certain territories in South Africa, such as the High Commission Territories, which it would be handier for South Africa to administer, but before anything is done about those territories I want the matter discussed in this House.

Mr. Beswick: I hope my hon. Friend is not suggesting that I advocated handing over to anybody without discussion in this House.

Mr. Ross: No, but my hon. Friend suggested that there should be some kind of general agreement. I can read his own words to him. It may be that he had not thought them out properly. He may not have thought out their consequences.

Mr. Beswick: Would I be in order, Mr. Speaker, if I suggested to my hon. Friend that before he comments on my words he should wait until he reads them tomorrow? I never used the words "general agreement"; I said "joint responsibility," which is a very different matter.

Mr. Ross: If my hon. Friend will read his own words he will find that his phrases were inclined to create the impression to which I have referred.
To me, the essential point is the future well-being of the 300 islanders. This action would not have been necessary but for the increasing importance of the islands strategically and from the point of view of commercial aviation. I read into this that more and more the traditional life of the islands will be subject to disturbance. If we are to have the new development to which my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge has referred, it means that the traditional life of the 300 people will be disturbed and that, more than ever now, we should be concerned about the preservation of their way of life, if that is possible, or,
at all events, we should ensure that with the commercial activity will also come full educational facilities and opportunities for the proper development of the islands.
It is not just an easy matter of passing something between friends. If the commercial development had not taken place the Bill would probably never have come forward. We want a little more than just the odd assurance that we had from the right hon. Gentleman. We need to be told that the future of the islanders is being properly looked after and that the Government are satisfied that the freedom of opportunity and of movement within the Commonwealth which was available to them while they were under our administration will continue in the new circumstances.

Mr. Beswick: As my hon. Friend has been making these remarks and seems so concerned about the people, I wonder how much interest he has shown in the islanders during the years that they have been under our administration.

Mr. Ross: I leave it to my hon. Friend to look up the record in HANSARD. I am not prepared to answer that question at the moment.
I wish to get from the Government the assurance that they are satisfied that the change which will take place in the lives of these people as a result of the commercial activity in the islands will be to their advantage.

4.39 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The Minister of State made a remark during his speech which I regard with a certain amount of disquiet. If I heard him aright, he gave us to understand that as recently as 1948 the population of the islands was about 1,600 and that it is now about 300. That means that within that comparatively short period the population has been reduced by about 80 per cent. That is a substantial figure. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will be able to tell the House why there has been this very large movement from the islands, mainly, I believe, to North Borneo.
Has there been some sort of policy on the part of the Administration that the population of these islands should be reduced? Is it a process that is likely to


continue? Is it likely in the long run to result in the complete disappearance of the native population from these islands? In that case, will the Cocos Islands be inhabited solely by people from Australia, or by such other persons as the Australian Government may choose to admit? That is a point on which the House is entitled to some information.
It is unfortunately the case, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) pointed out, that there are many parts of the world in which, as a result of migration, or historical circumstances, there is danger of racial tension. It is most unfortunate that at a time like this there should be one part of the world, however small, which has hitherto been able to provide for a coloured population, which now finds itself incapable of continuing to provide for them. That makes all the more important the questions on which I hope that we shall have further enlightenment.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Member keeps referring to the native population as if it had been there indefinitely. Is he not aware that no people had lived there for some time when ships first visited the islands?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I do not know what happened years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) knows what happened there years ago.
I can base my argument only on what I have heard here today, and which would have been impossible to discover without the most extensive researches. We have been told that the population of these islands has fallen from 1,600 to 300 in a very short time. I do not know from whence they came generations ago.
Here is a situation which calls for explanation. It may be that this process of causing the native, or coloured, or present population to disappear will be arrested as a result of this transfer. If that is so, there will be some 300 Cocos Islanders who will in due course acquire Australian citizenship. It cannot be argued that if they stay there a little longer and acquire Australian citizenship, they can be debarred from leaving the Cocos Islands, if they wish.
What will be the position if they stay and acquire Australian citizenship and

then decide that they want to settle in Australia? Will the Commonwealth Government accept them as immigrants who are free and equal, for example, with immigrants from this country, or other parts of the Commonwealth? That is a matter on which we ought to have an assurance before the House can be expected to accept the advice of the Minister of State and allow the Bill a Second Reading.

4.44 p.m.

Dr. H. Morgan: As the last speaker in this debate—

Mr. Follick: How does my hon. Friend know that he is the last?

Dr. Morgan: —I wish my hon. Friend had been a little quieter when he was making his own speech.
I want to say quite frankly, as I have done on many of these colonial questions, that I am terrified when hon. Members start to address the House. No one in this House, except a very few hon. Members, seems to take in colonial problems of this kind that deep human interest that they take in questions affecting the population of Great Britain.
Here is a question which involves not only Australia, a self-governing Dominion, not only South Africa. with an entirely different policy towards human beings and also a self-governing Dominion, but also a small Colony on the lines of the West Indies in between the two. Here, in Great Britain, we have to decide exactly how much government, how much latitude and how much restriction is to be allowed these people. I am terrified of what I have seen so often over the small affairs of the Colonies.
How will the Bill affect similar people in small Colonies? Take the people in the Cocos Islands vis-à-vis Australia on the one side and South Africa on the other. Australia has one colonial admission policy and South Africa another, especially towards coloured or native inhabitants. We are discussing these problems today with an hilarity and superficiality that is absolutely—

Mr. Hopkinson: Speak for yourself.

Dr. Morgan: I am and that it is my opinion of you and your comrades. I may be wrong, but at any rate I am frank enough to tell you to your face.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to address you thus, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): As he is speaking to me, he is entitled to do so.

Mr. Mallalieu: But he was addressing you in terms in which I hoped never to hear the Chair addressed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not quite get the point.

Dr. Morgan: The hon. and learned Gentleman is very fluent in addressing the Chair and, of course, I would never dare to challenge his opinion. But I have heard his manner of address in this House and outside and I must say that I prefer to hear his language in this House than the sometimes rather crude language he uses outside. The circumstances in which I was brought up lead me to believe that his language at times did not seem to be quite gentlemanly.
May I proceed with what I was saying? I was trying to point out—[Interruption.] You are interrupting me too. One of these days I am going to give it to you hot and you will understand.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not give it me hot, because I do not deserve it.

Dr. Morgan: I would not do that to you for worlds, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. You are much too gentlemanly and honest and straightforward and invaluable.

Mr. Ross: He is a Scotsman.

Dr. Morgan: I am not Scottish. I was lucky enough to go to a Scottish university and to be allowed to take medals and money from them and to gain my professional qualifications; but that is a different matter.
Here are these islands, with inhabitants settled on them, between two Dominions with entirely different policies towards certain colonial people and with different points of view towards colour and race. Here is Australia with one policy, partially democratic and certainly much better than another Dominion on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. Suppose

an inhabitant of the Cocos Islands lands in South Africa.

Mr. Follick: Other side of the Pacific?

Dr. Morgan: Whether it is the Atlantic, Arctic, or not, I wish you would let me go on.

Mr. Follick: Indian Ocean.

Dr. Morgan: Indian Ocean? All right. My province is the Atlantic Ocean. When one wants to talk sense in this House one is always interrupted by those with very little common sense or no sense at all.
The Cocos Islanders have Australia on one side with one racial policy and South Africa on the other with another policy. A Cocos Islander going to South Africa will find himself up against a strict racial colour policy. If the same man goes to Australia he will find another policy with a different twist. It is unfair to these people to whom we have pretended to give the citizenship of Great Britain that we have not taken any steps so far to make uniform their treatment in the various Dominions.
I have experienced this kind of thing personally. For 20 years I was in the West Indies. That is where I learned English. My origin was Irish when Ireland was supposed to be British, but I will not mention that because some people would disapprove.

Mr. Cahir Healy: Everybody disapproves of Ireland.

Dr. Morgan: Somebody disagrees with everything I say about Ireland. The Cocos Islanders will find that one Dominion has one policy and that another has an entirely different policy. We are discussing a Bill which will not give them the slightest protection.
For 20 years I was in the West Indies. I was educated there, to such an extent that I was able to win bursaries in Glasgow against competition from the best schools in Scotland. I do not want to boast, but I am very proud of what I managed to do in Scotland. I mention it because the same kind of treatment was given to me. When I left the West Indies to go to Canada en route to Britain the Canadians wanted to know whether I was black. I said "Blood counts. Call in the doctors and take a


bit of skin out," and they kept me waiting for two days at Halifax undergoing medical examinations before I was allowed to go on to Glasgow. When I arrived in Glasgow they said, "We do not care whether you are a Hottentot, or whether you are white, pink, blue, purple or any other colour." I said that there was no purple blood in me.
The Bill will subject the islanders to the indignity of having no nationality. They will not be Australian. When they leave either Australia or South Africa to travel to America or anywhere else, what will they call themselves? This is superficial legislation without previous study and proper scrutiny of the deeper problems. That is what I hate. The House of Commons is a wonderful place for its intuition and knowledge and for the way in which it passes its laws, but sometimes it treats important matters superficially. I have seen Welsh, Scottish and English legislation as well as colonial legislation treated superficially.
The Bill should be sent back to the appropriate Ministers. The whole question should be reviewed microscopically and should not be dealt with in this slipshod way. I have always hated this superficial-but-pretending-to-be-deep legislation. I can only say that I record my disappointment on this occasion.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Ede: All of us know and respect the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) on these matters of colonial and similar legislation, of which he has had great experience. I can understand the warmth of his feelings and the strength of the language he used, but I do not think that it is quite fair to suggest that the House approached the Measure with flippancy. I have heard from both sides of the House speeches of deep seriousness covering the very subjects on which my hon. Friend feels so passionately.
There were serious topics to be raised, and they were approached with a feeling of responsibility. If one or two remarks did excite a little friendly, humorous comment that only showed that the House was taking a deep interest in everything that was said. I should not like it to be thought, either here or in any part of

Her Majesty's Dominions, that on a subject such as this the House is ever other than very seriously concerned.
This is one of the first, if not the first, Measure since the alteration with regard to the various citizenships within Her Majesty's Dominions. We were all British subjects, but during my tenure at the Home Office we introduced a Measure which, owing to the complexity which had arisen about the meaning of the words "British subject" in different parts of the world, established citizenships within the general term "British subject."
I am sure that the Ministers concerned with the Bill would not expect that we should do other than be very meticulous in our consideration of the exact changes which we are making in the status of these 300 or so people in this remote part of Her Majesty's Dominions. At the moment they are citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies. That is a generic term which covers everyone not in a self-governing Dominion, but in the areas of Her Majesty's Dominions. As such, they have the right of free admission to this country. If a person can prove that he is—

Mr. Hopkinson: As British subjects they have that right.

Mr. Ede: As British subjects. That they will continue to have. No matter what may be their status in Australia, they will remain British subjects. I think that everyone has acted on that assumption today. But I understand that they are to become Australian citizens—

Mr. Hopkinson: They have the right to opt.

Mr. Ede: Children born after the transfer will all be born British subjects, but Australian citizens. They will not be citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies.
It will be to Australia that they will have to look for the enforcement of such rights and privileges as they may claim or wish to enjoy in other parts of Her Majesty's Dominions. That is to say, a child born after the passing of this Bill who wishes to enter South Africa or Canada, and who has difficulty at the port of entry, would have to look to the Australian Government, and not to the


Government of this country, for the enforcement of a right or the gaining of a particular privilege.
A question was raised by some of my hon. Friends to which I think we should receive a specific answer today. Does Australian citizenship mean that the islanders have the right of free travel in, and access to, those parts of Her Majesty's Dominions which are under the control of the Australian Parliament? Some of my hon. Friends have suggested—I think it was mainly by way of questions, without making the definite assertion—that after the passing of this Measure, and the corresponding Measure in the Australian Parliament, it may be that although these people would have the right of opting for Australian citizenship, if they so opted—and their children became, willy-nilly, Australian citizens at birth—they could be excluded from what I might call the mainland of Australia by some act, either legislative or administrative, on the part of the Australian Parliament.
That is a question to which we should have a clear and emphatic answer before we agree to the Second Reading of the Bill. If there be any doubt about this, I hope that steps will be taken between now and Committee stage so that a definite statement may be made on Committee stage regarding the exact position of these people. We have been responsible for them for a long time, and in this country we hold definite views regarding the equality of Her Majesty's subjects in different parts of the world.
We ought to see that there are sufficient safeguards provided for these people when, by a Measure of this kind, we transfer them to some other jurisdiction—still within the British Commonwealth of Nations—that of one of the self-governing Dominions. I hope that the Government will be able to give a quite specific assurance on that point.
In introducing the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said that the appropriate Measure had gone through all Its stages in the Australian Parliament. Does that include the giving of the Royal Assent? Usually, when we talk about a Bill going through all its stages here, we mean everything up to the giving of the Royal Assent. I merely ask the question because, of course, if the Measure has not received the Royal Assent in the Australian Parliament, and if there are any

doubts about matters that I have mentioned, it might be possible to get them resolved by means of Amendments before the Bill actually becomes law in Australia.
My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) alluded to the question of education. I do not know the standard of education in the Cocos Islands. As it has been under Scottish administration, I imagine that the standard is fairly good, though somewhat academic in type. But there is this further difficulty. Education in our Colonies has generally been carried on in conjunction with the churches, by missionaries, and by other people. Australia administers education publicly and makes contributions from public funds on a secular basis only.
Having suffered considerably from the difficulties of denominational education in this country, I do not want to impose it unnecessarily on a people who, so far, have managed to escape it. But, if that question is in issue, I hope that there will be an arrangement whereby schools which would not be recognised on the mainland of Australia can, if they have a reasonable tradition of good service in these islands, continue to be regarded as meriting support from State funds.
We all enjoyed the speech of the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs. This story of the way in which, more or less accidentally, the British system of government has grown up in some of these remote places, under a form of paternalism from which we in this country have long since passed, but the studying of which in these other places which are united with us, gives us considerable enjoyment, is a fascinating subject. I think that the gem of the speech was when the right hon. Gentleman said that certain people had escaped from Hare's clutches. Let us recognise that it was a "two-legged Hare."
I gathered that it was someone who was not observing too closely the fundamentals of the British way of life. Some of the people who were being treated badly suddenly discovered, having reached this island, that Lord Justice Mansfield's dictum applied even in the Cocos Islands, and that a slave could not breath on British, as well as on English, soil. That is something in which we


may all take pride. That feeling makes it apparent and is regarded as being one of the proofs that British rule exists.
I recall an almost similar incident in connection with the basis of the Venezuelan boundary. Some natives in the remotest part—

Dr. Morgan: Is this in order on this Bill?

Mr. Ede: —of the territory we were discussing said, when asked why they were sure that a certain river was the boundary, "Because our fathers told us that no slave could exist on the other side of it."
What the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon showed how firmly implanted that view is even in such remote places as the isolated islands with which we are now dealing. It is because of that fact, and the way in which the islanders have relied upon our tradition in the past, that it is essential to make quite certain that they will enjoy the fullest benefits of citizenship in the Dominion which has arranged to take them over from us.

5.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): First, I should like to thank the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for what he said about the seriousness with which this House regards the Bill. I know that hop. Members on both sides of the House take a great and deep interest in these matters. Although only about 300 inhabitants are concerned, the Bill raises matters of principle of which the whole House is deeply conscious. I am sure that anybody who reads this debate—as I hope many people overseas will read it—will be struck by the fact that the House has taken this as a most serious Measure.
The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), the right hon. Member for South Shields and the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) raised the most important point of substance in this discussion, namely, the future status of the Cocos Islanders. As the right hon. Member for South Shields said, since the 1948 Act the position is more complicated than it was when we were all British subjects, and that was all

there was to it. We are now British subjects as well as citizens of different territories or groups of territories. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Colonies pointed out that only 300 or so Cocos Islanders are left at the moment. I shall later refer in detail to why only 300 are left.
It is not expected that any substantial number of Cocos Islanders will desire to go to Australia, but in the course of negotiations the Australian Government have indicated that such applications for transfer would be most sympathetically considered. I am confident that this fully covers any applications for transfer of residence, whether permanent or otherwise. I realise that we are dealing with a point of principle rather than of substance, but I would remind the House that there are now just these 300 people and that those wishing to seek greater opportunities have, to the number of 1,300, already gone to North Borneo, under the policy of the former Labour Government, which agreed to the transfer of these islands in 1951.
Upon the point of citizenship, I stress that the islanders lose nothing but gain much from this transfer. They retain their citizenship of United Kingdom and the Colonies, unless they renounce it under Section 19 (1, a) of the British Nationality Act, 1948, which the right hon. Member for South Shields introduced, and they also gain Australian citizenship and the right to have each individual application for transfer of residence most sympathetically considered by Her Majesty's Government in Australia.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Transfer to where?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: To Australian territory. They remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and, therefore, have the right of entry into the United Kingdom and Colonies, as they have now, but by the Bill they also acquire Australian citizenship if they so opt, and, as I have said, the right to have each individual application for transfer of residence most sympathetically considered by Her Majesty's Government in Australia.

Mr. Dugdale: I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, what is the position of those who are born after the Bill becomes an Act—if it does? Do they


still remain British citizens of the United Kingdom? Will they not have to depend entirely upon Australia from then onwards? Second, are we to understand from the hon. Member that all that they will have is the right to have their application sympathetically considered? If so, they will have no more right than anybody else who wants to go to Australia.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The last point of the right hon. Gentleman's is not correct.
We are dealing with a group of Cocos Islanders about whom the Australian Government have said, in the course of negotiations, that any applications for transfer of residence will be considered most sympathetically. That is not a consideration which they apply to any other group.
As far as the right hon. Gentleman's other point is concerned, those children born after the date of transfer will be Australian citizens but will remain British subjects and, as such, will have right of access to the United Kingdom and Colonies, as they have now.

Sir L. Plummer: Does not this mean that the Australians are now creating a kind of second-class citizenship and are going to apply to the Cocos Islanders restrictions which they do not apply to any other Australian citizens? Is not this sufficient reason for our concern that these people are not being admitted to full Australian citizenship?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I believe that this is a very considerable step forward. These islanders will gain something and lose nothing by the proposal which I have tried to make clear.

Mr. Beswick: The hon. Gentleman said that this is a matter of principle and implied that it was not so important because it affected only a few people.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I put it the other way round.

Mr. Beswick: The hon. Member said that he realised that a question of principle was involved, but that it would affect only a very few people. As the numbers involved are so very small, would it not be better to try to keep the principle intact, and press this point a little further, in order to preserve the character of citizenship as it is at present understood?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I did put it the other way round. Although only very few people are concerned, I said that I was aware of the question of principle which was involved.
One of the points made by the Labour Government when they reached agreement with the Government of Singapore was that this agreement, which carries added advantages to the Cocos Islanders without taking anything away from them, was a satisfactory solution of the matter.

Mr. James Griffiths: It was clear from the beginning that these people would, if they so opted, become citizens of Australia. I gather from what the Minister has said that quite recently—I believe he said last year—a Bill was presented to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia and passed through that Parliament. Can the Under-Secretary of State tell us whether that Bill defines very clearly the citizenship of these people once this transfer takes place? Does it make any difference between these people as citizens and the other citizens of Australia? If it puts them in exactly the same category, they will presumably have the same right as any other citizen to go to that country.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, Sir. That was an enabling Bill asking for consent to, and accepting, the transfer of these islands which the right hon. Gentleman himself undertook when he was Colonial Secretary. The question of Australian citizenship and everything connected with it comes under other Australian legislation. The undertaking to which I have referred was given in the course of negotiations with the Australian Government and will, of course, be embodied in an exchange of letters which will amplify any final act of transfer.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the hon. Gentleman at least convey to the Australian Government the deep concern which we on this side of the House feel at the idea that these people may not be full citizens of Australia, but might only be what are called second-class citizens?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I think that is a bit hard, coming from the right hon. Gentleman, because he answered a Question on 4th July, 1951, about this matter. He may remember that he did, in fact, as I understand it, accept what we have now put into the form of this Bill, and the


points on which we have answered Questions. He then told the House that the transfer of the islanders was made without consulting them.
He also said:
The Governor of Singapore consulted the unofficial members of the Legislative Council, who agreed unanimously with the proposal and suggested certain conditions regarding the future status of the remaining islanders, which the Australian Government has readily accepted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 222.]
This was, of course, in reference to a settlement which he and his right hon. Friends had agreed in the summer of 1951.

Mr. Dugdale: It is not for us to agree or disagree, but for the Australian Government to decide the matter. We are concerned in it, but the Australians have the power to decide it, and we want the hon. Gentleman to make representations to them in order to see, even at this late hour, whether we may be reassured on this point.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I think it would be difficult at this late stage, even at the request of the right hon. Gentleman, to go back on an agreement which he and his right hon. Friends reached in July, 1951.
I am confident that this undertaking which the Australian Government have given adequately covers any likely requirements for the transfer of residence, either permanent or temporary. I ask the House to give credit to Her Majesty's Government in Australia, and our friends there, that they will do their best to improve the lot of these islanders, who are now, by the agreement of both sides of this House, to pass to Her Majesty's Government in Australia.
I am sure that those concerned will note the concern of both sides of this House that these individuals should be regarded as full citizens of Australia, and I hope and believe that Members in all quarters of the House who have made these points will be satisfied that the assurance which the Australian Government have given will cover the cases which they have in mind.

Dr. Morgan: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will say a word or two, vis-à-vis what was said about Australian policy, about South African policy

on the same question, to which I referred in my speech?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am afraid that, as far as I am concerned, that is quite outside this narrow Bill concerning the future of the Cocos Islands.
Another point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich raised concerned the colour bar and forced labour. I do not want to go into details, but I believe that, at this moment, it is going a bit far to suggest, that our friends in Australia will introduce a colour bar where none exists now, or that they are thinking of introducing forced labour.

Mr. Dugdale: On a point of personal explanation. I really did not suggest that they would do so. I only said that it would be a good thing that we should have satisfactory guarantees that it would never be introduced, and that that might well be incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am delighted to hear that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean what I understood him to mean by the words he used when he was speaking. As far as forced labour is concerned, the Australian Government, like that of the United Kingdom, supports the International Labour Office Convention No. 29 concerning forced labour. I am sure that both sides of the House concerned about this matter can rest on the knowledge of the good will of our Australian colleagues in seeing that these individuals are properly cared for.
Both right hon. Gentlemen opposite mentioned education. In the past, the educational facilities have been provided by the Clunies-Ross family, who, until recently, acted as a kind of feudal paterfamilias. I am certain that that will be carried on, and that our Australian colleagues will take early action to see how they can improve these facilities. It may be—I do not know—that some of these individuals may have their education in Australia, as, since the Colombo Plan was started, the Australian Government have generously assisted a considerable number of students from South-East Asia, with very great benefit to the students and to the peoples of South-East Asia.
The third point of substance was raised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), who used to be Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil


Aviation, and who has taken an interest in this point for a long time. My right hon. Friend kept his opening remarks brief, but he paid, as of course I do, the fullest tribute to those responsible for opening up this air route, and particularly to Captain Ambrose.
It is interesting, if one considers the civil aviation world, using a pair of dividers, and looks at the range of new aircraft, to realise how the cutting of a corner, so to speak, may bring other points into range, thus saving hundreds or thousands of flying hours per machine, if a particular route can be used. At the moment the Cocos Islands are used only for weekly services between the Cocos Islands, Mauritius, and the Union of South Africa. There is no reason, however, why civil aviation developments should not be extended in other directions, and the islands become an important point in the civil aviation communications of that part of the world.
The Australian Government are quite prepared to accord without question full operating rights on the airstrip to B.O.A.C. and colonial airlines, and they will inform both the United Kingdom and Singapore Governments before according any such rights to foreign airlines. The Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation has been consulted, and is satisfied with this assurance. The final details are being negotiated with Mr. Townley, the Australian Minister for Civil Aviation, who has just arrived in this country, and we shall take advantage of his visit to tie up the final details and settle these points to our mutual satisfaction.
I think that those are the main points raised in the debate. The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) raised one point about there being only 300 in the population of the islands. The population of the islands increased fairly steadily from 1903, but the economy never really recovered from the devastating effects of a cyclone in that year. After the war, it was decided by the Labour Government, with the Governments of Singapore and Borneo, to find an alternative livelihood for the islanders, and, of the 1,700 more than 1,300 went to Borneo, where they settled happily, where there is plenty of work for them, and where they will have an opportunity to increase their degree of prosperity that

otherwise would not have been accorded to them.
I am sure that the House will welcome the initiative taken by the Labour Government in 1951, and now carried through by this Government, enabling us to forge another link in Commonwealth communications and solidarity, which will enable us to bring happiness to the Cocos Islanders who remain in those islands, who, we very much hope, will not be overwhelmed by the introduction of too many jet engines.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Wills.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The need for this Bill springs from the limitations imposed on the Parliament of Northern Ireland by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Under this Act legislative competence in certain fields—for example, health, education, law and order—was transferred to the Parliament of Northern Ireland; but some matters, including, for example, the Crown, the Armed Forces, the Supreme Court and overseas trade, were reserved to our own Parliament here at Westminster.
The interlocking of transferred subjects with reserved matters is very intricate and hence, when the law in Northern Ireland requires amendment, legislation is sometimes necessary here. We may be asked to legislate ourselves for Northern Ireland on some reserved matter, or to extend the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Parliament to enable them to deal with something previously beyond their powers, or—a third possibility—to dispose of some doubt which has arisen on a borderline case as to whether the Parliament of Northern Ireland has power to deal with a particular question. This Bill does all three.
Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the salary and expenses of the Governor of Northern Ireland. Paragraph (1) of Section 4 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, as amended by paragraph 1 of the First Schedule of the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1922, provides that the Northern Ireland Parliament may not legislate about the Governor of Northern Ireland except as regards his executive functions in relation to matters within the competence of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
The existing financial provision for the Governor is made by Section 3 of the Lord Lieutenants' and Lord Chancellors' Salaries (Ireland) Act, 1832, and Section 37 (3) of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, both as amended by paragraph 1 (2) of the First Schedule to the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1922. He is provided with £8,000 a year, £6,000 being paid out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and £2,000 by Northern Ireland.
Under the proviso to paragraph 1 (2) of the First Schedule to the 1922 Act, the Governor is required to pay out of his salary the salaries and allowances of members of his personal staff. In addition to these specific financial provisions, the Governor has an official residence at Hillsborough, in County Down.
During the Committee stage of the Bill, in 1922, it was pointed out by the Government spokesman that salaries for such posts as this were fixed at below what the occupants of the posts were expected to spend. By 1922, therefore, the sum of £8,000 was expected to be insufficient for the expenses of the office. The greatly increased costs of maintaining the staff and services of a household suitable for The Queen's personal representative in Northern Ireland have rendered the sum of £8,000 even more insufficient despite administrative concessions which have been made; and, on the other hand, it cannot now be expected, as it was in 1922, that candidates for appointment to such offices will be able to make up deficiences out of their private resources.
The present Governor, Lord Wakehurst, was appointed in 1952: his predecessor had already drawn attention to the increasing difficulty of meeting his official expenses from the official provision, and Lord Wakehurst, in due course,

supported these representations with his own accounts of actual expenditure. The position has continued to get worse, and Lord Wakehurst is heavily out of pocket at the present moment.
It is obvious that this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue, for it is unseemly and unfair that the personal representative of The Queen in that part of the United Kingdom should be so placed.
Despite every effort to ease his burden by administrative means, it has become clear that the Governor's position, instead of improving, has grown steadily worse, and the time has obviously come for his financial arrangements to be put on a more satisfactory basis.
The passage of time and the change in monetary values having made legislation on this subject necessary, Her Majesty's Government have decided not simply to increase the Governor's salary, but to introduce completely new arrangements. Difficulty and uncertainty have arisen in the past because, as I have said, the Governor's salary was not really expected to cope even with all his expenses and there was no provision for a salary in the normal sense of the word.
In the Government's view, it is desirable to provide separately for the Governor's salary and for his expenses—and this is the effect of Clause 1. We have followed the precedent of the Lord High Commissioner (Church of Scotland) Act, 1948, which consists of one Section enabling the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to determine from time to time the allowance payable to the High Commissioner out of the Consolidated Fund, subject to a specified maximum in any year.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: How do the duties of those two offices compare?

Major Lloyd-George: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment, I was just coming to that.
The office of the Lord High Commissioner is not comparable with that of the Governor of Northern Ireland, for the first appointment lasts only for the duration of the General Assembly, that is to say, for about 10 days in any year. But the situation which necessitated legislation about the Lord High Commissioner in 1948 was somewhat similar to that


which now arises—indeed, was already at that time arising—with regard to the Governor of Northern Ireland: it was proving impossible for the Lord High Commissioner to carry out the functions of his office within the limits of expenses allowed to him under a statute of 1832.
We propose, in Clause 1 of the Bill, to allow the Governor of Northern Ireland a salary of £4,000, which will be liable to tax in the ordinary way, from which he will be expected to make contributions to the general expenses of the household in respect of the normal subsistence costs of himself, his family and personal guests. The Governor will also be entitled, under Clause 1, to an expense allowance of an amount not exceeding £10,000 a year: the exact amount is to be determined from time to time by the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Treasury.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I again ask about this comparison? Did not the Church of Scotland £4,000 include expenses?

Major Lloyd-George: If I remember rightly, it was all expenses. The point is that the duties of the High Commisisoner last for about 10 days in any one year.

Mr. Hughes: He has to entertain the whole Church of Scotland.

Major Lloyd-George: I believe that the effect of the 1948 Act was to double the amount allowed to him as a maximum. In the case we are now discussing, the sum is to be determined by the Secretary of State in concurrence with the Treasury from year to year. It is to cover the salaries of private secretaries, the wages of servants, the cost of official entertainment, and other expenses arising from the nature of his office.
As I have already said, the present Governor is already very much out of pocket. To enable us immediately to reimburse him, the Bill provides for the new arrangements to come into effect during the present financial year. In addition to these direct financial provisions, the Governor will continue to be provided with certain services, though under modified arrangements.

Mr. James Callaghan: Before the Home Secretary leaves the financial provisions, will he tell us whether the allowance is tax-free?

Major Lloyd-George: The salary is taxed in the ordinary way. The allowance is a sum determined from year to year on the actual expenses incurred in the carying out of the Governor's duties. It will be determined by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Treasury. It will be for expenses actually incurred.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry that I have not made my meaning clear. Will the amount of the expenses for which the Governor is reimbursed be subject to Income Tax or not?

Major Lloyd-George: No. It is only the salary which is subject to Income Tax.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It is worth a lot of money.

Mr. Callaghan: About £50,000.

Major Lloyd-George: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is done in exactly the same way as under the Act of 1948. It is determined on the expenses which are incurred.

Mr. Callaghan: Normally, such expenses are liable to tax.

Major Lloyd-George: It was not so in the Act of 1948, which I have been discussing.
It has been agreed with the Government of Northern Ireland that Hillsborough Castle and grounds will be reconveyed to the Minister of Works from the Northern Ireland Ministry of Finance, after an enabling Bill has been passed by the Northern Ireland Parliament. The Minister of Works will then accept responsibility for its maintenance in future. No capital payment is involved, but there will be annual expenditure falling on the Public Buildings (United Kingdom) Vote. It will cover, in addition to normal maintenance, the cost of cleaning, fuel, furniture and equipment, the salaries of outdoor staff, of firemen and of a chauffeur, and the provision of an official car.
This expenditure has been borne by the Northern Ireland Government since 1927. The Minister of Works is already responsible for the maintenance of large public buildings of this kind, such as embassies, and he is better equipped than the Government of Northern Ireland to cope with problems arising therefrom. Subsection (2) provides that, as from


1st April, 1955, the Northern Ireland Government shall no longer be required to make a contribution of £2,000 a year towards the Governor's salary.

Clause 2 relates to the Supreme Court, which—

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Before the Home Secretary leaves Clause 1, can he give us an idea of the global extra amount which will fall on the Exchequer here? As the £2,000 is no longer to be paid by Northern Ireland, it will increase our expenditure, and the amount will now fall on the Ministry of Works.

Major Lloyd-George: I will get the figure checked, but my recollection is that it will be about £8,000 a year. The hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about maintenance?

Mr. Bing: Yes.

Major Lloyd-George: I think it is about £8,000. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will speak later, and I will have the figure checked.

Mr. Ede: Does this mean that the whole of the expenses of the Lieutenant-Governor are to be borne in future on United Kingdom funds, and no part on Northern Ireland funds? Is that the effect of the withdrawal of the £2,000 that the Northern Ireland Government now pay?

Major Lloyd-George: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Bing: We pay it all.

Major Lloyd-George: Clause 2 relates to the Supreme Court, and this is a reserved matter under Section 47 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. The Clause is designed to ease the difficulties arising from the small number of judges available in Northern Ireland by cutting out an unnecessary intermediate stage in civil and rating cases.
Under Northern Ireland law, cases stated are required to be heard in some matters in the High Court and in others by the Court of Appeal. Where the case is heard in the High Court, a further appeal lies, in civil and rating matters, to the Court of Appeal, and the hearing in the High Court then becomes an expensive and inconvenient step. When

arrangements have to be made to form a divisional court for cases stated, the trial of common law actions is often seriously delayed, thus inconveniencing jurors, witnesses and litigants.
Clause 3 touches upon highly technical questions relating to the law of property. A committee on the law of intestate succession in Northern Ireland was appointed in 1951 and reported in June, 1952. The Northern Ireland Government wish to carry out most of the committee's recommendations. These long-overdue reforms will bring the law in Northern Ireland on this subject broadly into accord with what it has been in England and Wales since 1925.
This will involve the introduction into the Parliament of Northern Ireland of legislation on the administration of estates of deceased persons and on the devolution and distribution of real property; but at the present time this cannot be done for want of the enablement contained in Clause 3. This is because the effect of one of the proposed reforms will be to abolish escheat to the Crown in cases of intestacy and by Section 4 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the Northern Ireland Parliament is prevented from legislating on matters affecting the interests of the Crown.
In simple terms, the intention is that real property shall devolve in the same way as personal property. Since heirs to personal property are usually easily found in a small community like Northern Ireland, rather less property may escheat to the Crown, and there may be some slight loss to the Exchequer. It is not possible to estimate the probable extent of the loss, but it cannot be great.
Clause 4 is designed to enable the Northern Ireland Parliament to remove difficulties arising from a slight technical inadequacy in the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, which failed to provide for the publication of certain subordinate instruments relating to Northern Ireland in the annual volumes of Northern Ireland Statutory Rules and Orders.
These instruments, which include the Northern Ireland Supreme Court Rules, are not, therefore, to be found in the usual annual reference volumes, and they are nowhere conveniently available for people who need to consult them. The difficulty of tracing them increases as time goes on. This Clause enables the


Northern Ireland Parliament to bring these instruments within their own normal publication arrangements.
Clause 5 makes it clear that the Parliament of Northern Ireland has power to legislate on coroners and coroners' juries.
Paragraph (1) of section 4 (1) of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, precludes the Northern Ireland Parliament from legislating in respect of
The Crown or the succession to the Crown, or a regency, or the property of the Crown. …
Technically and historically, coroners are officers of the Crown. Consequently, it might be argued that the Parliament of Northern Ireland is debarred by the 1920 Act from legislating about them. In view, however, of the modern status and functions of coroners there seems to be no reason why this obstacle should not be removed so as to enable the. Northern Ireland Parliament to legislate on this subject, and to bring up to date the statutory provisions governing these matters in Northern Ireland. At present, almost all the relevant statutes date back to the last century.
This Bill is strongly requested by the Government of Northern Ireland with the concurrence—in so far as his interests are concerned—of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Callaghan: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman clarify the point about Income Tax? The ordinary citizen in this country has to return any amount paid to him by way of expenses and has to prove that figure to the satisfaction of the Inland Revenue Department. My simple question is: will the Governor of Northern Ireland have to do the same thing?

Major Lloyd-George: I thought I had made it perfectly clear—if not, my hon. Friend will make it even clearer—that the £4,000 salary is subject to tax in the ordinary way. As far as the expenses are concerned, they will have to be concurred in by the Secretary of State and the Treasury. They will, therefore, be expenses actually incurred in performance of the Governor's duties. I do not think that such a case is comparable to the ordinary citizen's expenses.

Mr. Callaghan: It is important to get this clear, because the taxation position on allowances makes a tremendous difference between any subject's gross and net income. I understand that the payment of expenses will be tax-free and is, in fact, a payment in respect of certain expenses incurred, and, as such, is not liable to challenge by the Inland Revenue authorities?

Major Lloyd-George: But it is not quite the same thing as the expenses which the ordinary citizen incurs, because all the Governor's personal expenses would be treated in the ordinary way as part of his expenditure from his salary, but the other expenditure would be that incurred in the discharge of his official duties.

Mr. Callaghan: There is always the term "in discharge of a duty."

Major Lloyd-George: In the case of the Lord High Commissioner it was because the expenses were insufficient to enable anyone to carry out the duties of the office that they were doubled, which, I think, everyone agreed at the time was the proper thing to do.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: No.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: The Home Secretary said that the expenses would be reviewed from time to time by the Secretary of State and by the Treasury. What precisely is meant by "from time to time"? Does it mean annually, every three years, every six months—or what?

Major Lloyd-George: It would be done annually, in the ordinary way.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Could the Home Secretary indicate what legislation, if any, is contemplated by the Parliament of Northern Ireland with reference to the jurisdiction of coroners and coroners' juries? It seems a somewhat curious matter to legislate on at this stage. Is it proposed to extend the jurisdiction of coroners' courts and, if so, in what direction? Or is it simply proposed to pay the coroner a larger salary? That might be a highly desirable thing to do—I do not know.
Perhaps the House could be told why this curious request, which requires us to abdicate control over the jurisdiction of coroners' courts in Northern Ireland,


comes to us now. It may or may not be of great constitutional importance—that depends on the purpose which the Northern Ireland Parliament have in mind—but it might be helpful for the House to have some enlightenment.

Major Lloyd-George: As far as I know, there has been no change in the law since 1920. This is one of the reserved subjects to which I referred at the beginning of my speech. My hon. Friend will refer to it more fully. I believe that the Parliament of Northern Ireland has plans at the moment for the amendment and consolidation of certain enactments. Perhaps my hon. Friend may be allowed to deal with that later.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): This is a Second Reading. Has the hon. Member a point of order?

Mr. Thomas: It is a point of information—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: What is meant by a point of information?

Mr. Thomas: —on the same lines—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, I do not think that we can have it now.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: On the face of it this is a small and simple Bill, but after the explanation given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman I am not at all sure that it is as simple as it at first appears. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends who are learned in the law will have a good deal to say about those Clauses dealing with legal matters, but I want to speak about the Bill as a whole and, in particular, about the new arrangements for the Governor.
I understand that the Governor's salary at present is £8,000 a year, which includes all the expenses of his office, and that the Northern Ireland Government pay £2,000 towards his salary. From what the Home Secretary has said I gather that it has been concluded that the salary of £8,000 a year, including all expenses, is inadequate for the Governor to carry out his duties efficiently and, at the same time, manage to live.
I do not disagree with a Bill that divides salary from expenses. It is much better for the salary to be laid down and for a Governor, or any other officer, to know precisely what his salary is. It is also right that any expenses incurred by a Governor, or any officer in pursuance of his official duties, should be paid by the State and should not be included in his salary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has put to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, a business man, in the ordinary course of his work, claims an appropriate amount for expenses and the Inland Revenue officers then examine the expenses he has claimed. They may allow the whole; they may even allow a part—certainly, in many cases, they disallow certain expenses.
My hon. Friend asked whether the expenses up to £10,000 a year for which this Bill provides would go through that procedure; that amounts claimed as moneys spent in pursuant of the office would have the same careful scrutiny by Inland Revenue officers to ensure that they were, in fact, expenses arising out of the office. I understood the Home Secretary to reply that these expenses would be "vetted" by him and by the Treasury. I presume that what it will mean is that the Governor himself will not pay those sums but that they will be paid by the United Kingdom Treasury.
In other words, all bills will be presented to, and paid by, the Treasury. If that is not the case, and if a lump sum of up to £10,000 is to be given to the Governor, we shall want an assurance that moneys which he pays out of his expenses account will have the same careful scrutiny as those claimed by any businessman. I think that that is a fair statement of the case, and I am putting my hon. Friend's point for him because it can be better done in this way, perhaps, than by question and answer.
The Bill provides for a sum of up to £10,000, and I should like to know what it was that decided that £10,000 was the amount that would be required. Can the Minister say, for example, whether, in certain circumstances, £10,000 would be sufficient? I am aware that while we are discussing salaries of £4,000 a year and expenses of up to £10,000, there are many people in Northern Ireland whose standard of living is extremely low because


of the grave unemployment that exists there and who will be asking some questions about this matter.
I understood from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that matters relating to the Crown and the Armed Forces are reserved matters, and the Governor, therefore, will have to accept responsibility for matters relating to the Crown and the Armed Forces. In those circumstances, I should like to know whether £10,000 will be sufficient. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is well aware of the grave unemployment that exists in Northern Ireland, and which is increasing. It is 7 per cent. of the population, and if it were 7 per cent. of the United Kingdom employable population it would represent nearly 1,500,000 people. If there were 1,500,000 unemployed in this country, I am quite sure that no Government could withstand the public wrath arising from it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not discuss the subject of unemployment. There is nothing about that in this Bill.

Mr. Robens: No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there is nothing about it in the Bill, but, with respect. I am concerned about the effect of this unemployment. Demonstrations have now started as a result of unemployment, and I was going on to say that it may well be that the Governor will have a serious situation to face, which is likely to cost him a lot of money. I am not satisfied that the £10,000 provided in this Bill will be adequate to meet the exigencies which are likely to arise as a result of the unemployment in Northern Ireland. Therefore, with respect, I should like to develop the point whether £10,000 is sufficient or whether it should be much more.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that on this Bill we can discuss a hypothetical riot because of unemployment.

Mr. Robens: I am not attempting to discuss a hypothetical riot. I have here a copy of the "Irish News" dated Saturday, 15th January, which has a headline:
Hungry 'thirties scene as men march to dole office. Unemployed demonstrate in Coleraine. Call for jobs, not promises.
I warned the Prime Minister in November last year that unless some action were taken on this question of unemployment,

there would be occasions of this character. These demonstrations can lead to window smashing and riotous assembly, and the Governor will be required to call in troops. I am not sure whether £10,000 would be adequate for him to discharge the duties which he would have to undertake in those circumstances.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That could perhaps be related to this Bill, but it is so far from it that I do not think we can go into it in detail.

Mr. Bing: On a point of order. Surely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we on this side of the House are right in saying that the first economic task in Northern Ireland is to raise not the salary of the Governor but the rate of unemployment benefit, and, therefore, it would be wrong for this House to give priority to raising the Governor's salary. You will recall that exactly the same argument was used in this House when we were discussing Members' salaries. On that occasion it was held to be in order to mention that there were, for example, the old-age pensioners whose pensions should be dealt with before Members' salaries. Surely, therefore, it would be in order to submit the same argument on the question of the expense of the Governor of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it might be touched on in passing, but to go into it in detail would be out of order on this Bill.

Mr. Delargy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It may be that that there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who might, on the merits of the Bill, be inclined to vote in favour of it, but, on the other hand, there are some hon. Members who might feel that the present time is not opportune to increase the Governor's salary. We think that the moment is not opportune because of the high incidence of unemployment in Northern Ireland. As that factor is in the minds of many of us, surely some reference to unemployment in Northern Ireland is in order on the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is what I said a moment ago. Some reference would be in order, but it is not in order to go into it in detail. To discuss unemployment in detail would be out of order.

Mr. Robens: I accept that ruling wholeheartedly, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I did not myself feel that I had gone into the matter in great detail. Indeed, I submitted to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman four or five foolscap pages dealing with this matter in great detail and making many suggestions about the Development Corporation, the necessity for giving United Kingdom Government aid to the Northern Ireland Government, the provision of relief work and emergency measures, and matters of that kind. I have submitted all those, and, as a result, I would not dream of mentioning them this afternoon, because we are on a Bill dealing with the Governor's salary. But I did feel—and I am glad that you agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—that it is reasonable that one should refer, in passing, to the kind of things with which the Governor might be faced and for which this amount might not be sufficient.
No doubt some of my hon. Friends will develop the legal aspects of the matter and will have a good many interesting things to say, but I cannot leave this Clause until we have examined it very closely and have decided whether or not this amount of £10,000 a year has been arrived at after very careful consideration. I hope that the Minister will tell us how this sum has been arrived at. Did somebody think that it was a nice round figure to put into the accounts? Is it based upon previous spending? Is it based upon some expectations, perhaps of a Royal visit which is costly, or something of that kind? Obviously, this House should not leave a Bill of this kind which involves the United Kingdom Government in an expenditure of £10,000 not as a salary but purely as expenses—which is a lot of money—without making searching inquiries into whether this money is necessary or whether in the circumstances which I have briefly outlined, it will be sufficient.
Two of my colleagues and I spent some days in Northern Ireland, and we were in the Coleraine area, where these demonstrations took place—demonstrations in which members of the Church took part because of the very bad conditions in which people find themselves, with their livelihoods gone and no hope of a job in the future—and its seems to me that the question of raising salaries and paying very large amounts as expenses must be

being debated very hotly in the unemployment queues in Londonderry, Coleraine and other places which we visited.
That brings me to the next point, which will be very contentious and with which the Governor may have to deal, and on which he may have to spend some of his £10,000. That is the disgraceful way in which the recipients of unemployment assistance are being treated. It amazed my friends and myself to find in that country that we were back in the 1920s in this country, when we visited places like Derry and Coleraine and when the "not genuinely seeking work" clause which was so much the bone of contention in the 1920s—

Captain L. P. S. Orr: On a point of order. Obviously, the question of the administration of the National Assistance Board in Northern Ireland is of great importance, and I would be only too happy if it were debated at length so that any matters which the right hon. Gentleman might raise could be dealt with, but might we have some guidance from you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, about the scope of the debate? If the right hon. Gentleman develops this theme, shall we have an opportunity of rebutting his argument?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I shall be leaving the Chair in a very few minutes, and this is the note which I shall leave for my successor: "Passing reference to unemployment as a reason for dealing with that first would be in order but not to deal with unemployment in detail."

Mr. Callaghan: You will be aware, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Social Services (Northern Ireland Agreement) Act, 1949, provides that Northern Ireland shall maintain the scope of its Assistance scales in conformity with those in this country. Would it not be a good reason for refusing to give a Second Reading to the Bill if it could be shown that there was disparity between the treatment of the unemployed in Northern Ireland and their treatment in this country? We submit to you that it would be a very good reason for refusing leave to proceed with the Bill in advance of putting right such a situation as that, which clearly comes under the Social Services (Northern Ireland Agreement) Act.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It might be a very good reason, but I do not think it would be in order.

Mr. Callaghan: If we have a good reason, as you say we have, for refusing leave to proceed with the Bill, would it not be in order to advance that reason why we should not proceed with the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That was not what I said. The point made by the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) was to compare the rate of unemployment in the two countries. I said that it might be reasonable to deal with that but that it would not be in order to go into detail. That is what I said, and the hon. Member has turned my words round.

Mr. Callaghan: May I submit to you why it should be in order and ask you to hear a submission?
Under the Social Services (Northern Ireland Agreement) Act, 1949, it is clearly provided—in paragraph 3 of the Agreement made between the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance in Northern Ireland—that the Government of Northern Ireland undertakes to maintain similar rates of benefit in respect of Assistance grants. It is part of our case that they are not doing so and that they are treating the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland in a way which would be an affront to the conscience of this country if it were practised here. If we can advance that, as indeed we can and do, surely it is a reason for refusing further powers to a Government of this sort which breaks the agreement already existing under another Act.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think it is in order to discuss in detail other Acts in the Schedules. If that were in order, we could go on for ever more.

Mr. Delargy: I am still a little bewildered by this, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understand that you have agreed that the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) made about the treatment of unemployed in Northern Ireland might be a very good reason for opposing this Bill. If it is a very good reason for opposing the Bill, how can it be out of order to debate it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: May I repeat what I said? I said that I would leave to

my successor in the Chair this Ruling: "Passing reference to unemployment as a reason for dealing with that first would be in order but not to deal with unemployment in detail." I think that that is quite clear. I hope the House will understand that Ruling and will keep to it.

Mr. Robens: I am a little surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) intervened to prevent discussion of these matters, in view of the fact that in the main these are his constituents whom he has grossly neglected in the House. Were it not—

Captain Orr: On a point of order.

Mr. Robens: May I not complete my sentence?

Captain Orr: On a point of order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want wilfully to misrepresent me. I said that I should be perfectly happy at any time to debate the administration of the National Assistance Board in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Delargy: Then why not take this opportunity?

Captain Orr: There is a very good answer to the charges which the right hon. Gentleman has made—an answer which I should be happy to give if you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, allowed a position to develop in which the right hon. Gentleman could put his argument. I was merely seeking an opportunity of putting my arguments and of safeguarding my right to do so if the right hon. Gentleman were permitted to develop his argument.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Robens: It seems to me that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have accepted the invitation of his constituents to talk to them about it. That would have been the place to do it—in the unemployment queues. The fact that he has now intervened to try to prevent even a passing reference to these matters suggests that he realises how guilty he is in not having raised them before and in leaving it to Englishmen to have to go to Northern Ireland to indicate the sad state of affairs under the administration of this Government.
Having made that passing reference to what may happen and to the very bad


way in which the Assistance Board is being administered, I say that these are matters which may give rise to action by the Governor. We shall want to know exactly how this £10,000 is made up and whether, for example, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friends took all these things into consideration when they were framing the Bill. If they did not do so, then it would be very much better to withdraw the Bill and to look again at the allocation to the Governor, because it may well be that serious measures will have to be taken by the Governor for which the United Kingdom Government must accept responsibility. As the Governor represents the Crown and as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman advises the Crown, ipso facto he advises the Governor and, therefore, has a special responsibility.
Is he aware of what is happening in Northern Ireland which could give rise to very grave dissension which might call for the expenditure of much more than £10,000? If he had only taken the advice of some of my hon. Friends and myself and looked with kindly favour upon some concrete proposals of a practical nature which we offered to him, he might have been saved a good deal of difficulty and helped in his job. Why we should want to help the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in his job I do not know, except that we do so out of goodness of heart and our desire to look after the people of Northern Ireland in the absence of their being properly looked after by the Tory Members who are elected to this House from Northern Ireland.
One of the grave features about this situation is that is some parts of Northern Ireland unemployment is as high as 25 per cent.

Mr. Delargy: In Newry, South Down.

Mr. Robens: While 25 per cent. may not mean a lot of people in a small community, it is a very dangerous situation indeed, and, if I may say so, being on the Border makes it much more dangerous than if the 25 per cent. unemployment were elsewhere. If hon. Members want passions inflaming and if they want people who live where there is 25 per cent. unemployment to feel that there is political bias against them—as some of them do—then the problems which will

arise for the Governor will be very considerable indeed.
I do not think that hon. Members on this side of the House can easily give the Bill a Second Reading unless we have much more information from the benches opposite about their precise intention in this matter of the £10,000. We also want to know what they propose to do about helping the Northern Ireland Government to met these very grave unemployment problems, for which hon. Members opposite have some responsibility. If they can assure us that they will not cause any larger sum than £10,000 to be spent by the Governor on these emergency measures, which are bound to be needed, that will be one point. Can they tell us whether they are dealing with this grave problem of unemployment, because they have a responsibilty to deal with it.
If they can give us those assurances and can assure us that the £10,000 will be adequate to meet all requirements and that the £10,000, as expenses, will be carefully scrutinised, as any other business man's expenses would be scrutinised, it may well be that my hon. Friends and I will give the Bill a Second Reading, but I am bound to say that unless we can have an explanation in much greater detail about many of the matters which I have raised—and there are many others on which my hon. Friends will want to comment—we shall have to consider our attitude. We shall expect a very detailed reply upon these matters before we decide whether or not we can give the Bill a Second Reading.

6.20 p.m.

Mrs. Patricia Ford: I do not wish to detain the House for very long, but I feel I must say a few words on Clause 1 of the Bill. As we have heard, that Clause deals with the salary of the Governor of Northern Ireland. As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary has told us, at present the Governor receives £8,000 a year, out of which he must pay the expenses and salaries of his personal staff. This arrangement was made by Act of Parliament as long ago as 1922.
In the last 30 years the value of money has depreciated by 50 per cent., so that what was thought fair and reasonable in 1922 is now worth only half. Yet the position and responsibilities of the


Governor are no different; they are in no way eased or reduced. With half as much money, he has the same expenses and the same staff and also has to keep up the same standard of entertaining and activities.
A high standard is expected of Her Majesty's representative in the Province of Ulster. We are most fortunate in having had three most excellent and illustrious Governors since 1922. It would be hard to find a more popular pro-consul than Lord Wakehurst. Since he and his wife came to our Province three years ago, they have endeared themselves to the people of Ulster. They have entered into all aspects of national life and have won the deep and enthusiastic esteem of a people who are well-known for their shrewd judgment and high ideals and who do not give their affection lightly.
The position of Governor calls not only for the highest integrity but also for the qualities of tact, understanding and knowledge of the people. The Wakehursts have shown that they possess those qualities in full measure. Their interest is unfailing and their efforts unflagging. Scarcely a day goes by when one does not see in the newspapers that: they have been to a function in the Province.
There are not only the important functions, but the small and perhaps less important tasks they have to perform in outlying parts of the Province which they do not have to go to, but to the simple people it is a matter of great pride and pleasure that they do so. They are the representatives of the British Crown and some hon. Members may not know what a tremendous thing that is in Ulster. Visiting hon. Members from England have sometimes expressed surprise to me at the fervent loyalty of Northern Ireland, which has to be experienced, seen and heard to be really believed.
I do not believe we have anything like it in England. Some hon. Members may think that perhaps these loyalties to the Queen and the Empire are old-fashioned and out-of-date. Perhaps they are, but we believe in these things in Ulster. We care about them far more than we do about partisan politics, and if it is old-fashioned to praise these things then we are not ashamed of being old-fashioned. It is because these loyalties are so deep in our hearts that the salary increase,

which I feel sure will have the approval of the whole Province, will, I hope, also have the approval of the whole of this House.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Cahir Healy: The hon. Lady the Member for Down, North (Mrs. Ford) has spoken of the popularity of Lord Wakehurst, an Englishman. She apparently forgets that for a far longer period we had as Governor the Duke of Abercorn, an Irishman, and at one time the leader of her party. Apparently eaten bread is soon forgotten and an Englishman from across the water is more popular with her side than an Irishman who has been there for generations. That is a curious treatment of loyalty from Northern Ireland.
I have also heard the hon. Lady speak of the great record of loyalty which Northern Ireland has, but it has only been loyal when it has paid it to be loyal. We remember the occurrences in Curragh Camp. We remember Lord Carson's crusade in this country. In Northern Ireland there was not much loyalty about that. That, I think, is the basis of all the pretended loyalty there is today. There was not much loyalty when Lord Craigavon set up a Government in Northern Ireland in 1912 against the King's Government here.
We do not need this Measure, because there has been no popular demand for it. I am a Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament and I have not heard a single word spoken in that Assembly concerning the inadequacy of the salary of the Governor-General. The people there have made no request to the hon. Lady nor her colleagues in this House to increase the salary of the Governor-General. When the Northern Ireland Government are asking public bodies to reduce their expenses, even upon hospitals, it seems a very inappropriate moment to start advocating an increase in the salary of a Governor-General who already is receiving £8,000 a year.
Grants for houses and public hospitals have been reduced and the Assistance Board has been asked to curtail allowances. This seems a most inopportune time, when farmers and industrialists in Northern Ireland are going through the most serious crisis they have known for


a very long period, to start increasing salaries at the top.
If the hon. Lady will look into the question of salaries for comparable representatives abroad she will see how comparatively generous we have been with the representatives in Northern Ireland. The Governor-General of Canada, I understand, is paid £10,000 a year and the Governor-General of Australia is paid £10,000 a year. The population of Northern Ireland is only equal to that of the City of Glasgow, the Lord Provost of which gets no salary at all for his full-time employment.
What function does the Governor-General perform in Northern Ireland? I live in Fermanagh and we rarely see his face there. When he came to our country he was supposed to be a Gaelic speaker. Probably he thought that would make his advent more popular, but, under the Ministry of Education in Northern Ireland that would tend rather to send him to prison than to give him any honour. When the Government of Ireland Act was passing through this House in 1920, from the Tory benches we heard again and again—from Bonar Law and from Earl Winterton, who has not long left this House, and from Lieut.-Colonel Arnold Guinness—that if they thought that Act was not going to prove a blessing to Ireland it would not have been introduced into this House. It has not proved a blessing; on the contrary, partition is very unpopular in Ireland—more unpopular today than ever it was.
We feel that making these sinecures more important by increasing the salaries will tend more to make partition permanent. There will be great competition for this office in future. We shall have very eloquent gentlemen going across from this country to Northern Ireland, as has been the case quite recently. It will have the effect of preserving a new and increased interest in the mutilation of a sister nation. This country desired unity on several occasions. Expressions of hon. Members opposite are evidence of that. In practice, however, the Government have been doing all they can to keep partition as a permanent feature.
The House of Commons passed the Ireland Act, 1949. It has amalgamated the insurance funds of Northern Ireland

and of this country, to make the insurance fund of Northern Ireland solvent and to keep it so. On balance, several millions a year has been paid to that country.
If I read matters aright, the Bill will enable the Governor to reduce his Income Tax payments. In other words, it gives a sop to partition, and does so at a time when the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland is four times as high as in this country and when the payments to National Assistance claimants are being cut down week after week by what are called the "discretionary reductions," which are practically unknown in this country.
The Duke of Abercorn was Governor-General for a great number of years. He was an opponent of ours, but I have never heard from any source that his administration was inefficient or that his entertaining was inadequate. He occupied that post during the war years. If the existing salary was sufficient for the Duke of Abercorn, an Irishman, why is it not sufficient for one of the perambulating English politicians? The Governor must have looked upon the Bill as Moses looked upon the rock as he struck it and water flowed forth.
The post of Governor will in future be one of the brightest jewels in the diplomatic lucky bag. I know of these eloquent gentlemen who cross the Irish Sea and who next morning are found in some remote parish telling the natives the history of their own parish of locality. The people do not know that probably an Under-Secretary had worked overtime the previous night.
The Governor must have caught a fairy, and caught it in a very unexpected place—on the Treasury Bench. Two years ago, an American executive of a film company came to Ireland looking for a fairy; he wanted to film it. But his quest was not successful, and now we know the reason: he looked in the wrong place. I suggest to the Minister that he should get this fairy damsel out of the House as quietly as possible, because apparently she has now achieved her main ambition. There is no knowing what further changes her wiles might work here with eligible and impressionable Front Bench Members.
There is a feeling, too, that since the tenure of the Duke of Abercorn as


Governor of Northern Ireland ceased prior to his death, the holders of the office have wanted to get as much as they possibly can out of it for the short time that they occupy it; they want to make hay while the sun shines.
Hon. Members in this House are tremendously concerned from time to time with the unity of Germany, and even the unity of China, as witnessed by the question of Formosa; but, at the same time, while making these professions, they legislate again and again to make the partition of Ireland more permanent than it has been up to now. This indicates a degree of insincerity that has been noted particularly in the United States of America and in the English Colonies.
The Irish Republic was very much criticised when it sought to have appeals from its decisions to the Privy Council abolished, but Northern Ireland is doing precisely the same thing by whittling down the reserve services and trying to get them within the compass of its own Parliament and courts. In other words, the limitations of the 1920 Act are gradually being whittled away, so that, in effect, the Treaty is being altered by retail.
All this is not calculated to bring about a united Ireland. A united Ireland would be better for both our countries than a divided Ireland can ever be. In the Republic we have no bombs and no navy, and we have very little by way of an army, but we have a spiritual influence that extends to every part of the English-speaking world.
Hon. Members would do well to remember the words of Lord Craigavon to Mr. Duggan, who occupied a very high position in the Civil Service. He said that Ireland was too small for two Parliaments and that although it might not take place in his time or the time of Mr. Duggan, there was certain ultimately to be a united Ireland. In short, there is no room in Ireland for two Parliaments, and there is no room for two Governors.

6.37 p.m.

Professor Sir Douglas Savory: I should very much like to revert to the Bill and to deal with Clause 1, which seems to be the most controversial Clause. I agree with the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy) in paying a high tribute to the Duke of Abercorn. I am certain that my

hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mrs. Ford) will agree with me that he was a remarkable Governor. The proof was his reappointment time and again after his term of office had expired.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone has stated that the salary of £8,000 was sufficient in the days of the Duke of Abercorn. From my own personal knowledge of the subject, I can give the assurance that that was not the case. During the last years of his Governorship, the position was very difficult because the expenses had grown so enormously out of all proportion to the salary.

Mr. Healy: He never asked for an increase.

Sir D. Savory: It is well known to us what he went through. We know also that the former Governor, Lord Granville, drew the attention of the Government of Northern Ireland to the fact that his expenses were altogether in excess of his salary.
The present proposal is to reduce the salary of £8,000 to £4,000, on which the Governor will have to pay Income Tax; but in order that he may not be so much out of pocket as he has been for expenses, it is intended that £10,000 shall be provided, as a maximum, for his expenses—not private expenses for the entertaining of private guests, but public expenses for public functions. To my mind, an adequate check will be provided. The Memorandum to the Bill explains that the £10,000 will be controlled not only by the Secretary of State, who is responsible for Northern Ireland, but also by the Treasury. Therefore it seems to me to be an exceedingly reasonable proposition.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone referred to the salary of the Governor-General of Canada and also of Australia. I will take what is more likely to be comparable, the salary of the Governor of New Zealand, who gets £5,000, plus another £5,000 for expenses, which is paid by the New Zealand Government and is not subject to British Income Tax.
We have also heard from an interrupter an allusion to the fact that the Government of Northern Ireland are no, longer to pay the £2,000 which they have had to pay hitherto under the Act of 1920. That is true, but if the hon. Gentleman had studied carefully the


Memorandum to the Bill, he would have seen that the Government of Northern Ireland are to take over the office expenses of the Governor and the salaries of the officials—and not only that, but all the expenses of running the office, which I think he will find largely exceed the £2,000.
So I think the Bill is extremely reasonable. I do not wish to go into the irrelevant question of partition. I have discussed that over and over again with the hon. Gentleman. Nor do I wish to go into the question of unemployment. I am well acquainted with the situation. I know fully what are the reasons for it, for I discussed them with the Minister of Labour when I went to Stormont. I do not see what they have to do with this simple Clause 1 of the Bill.
I should like to join in paying a tribute to the work done by Lord Wakehurst. I know no one who has done more for Northern Ireland. He travels about the country, attends every possible function, whether it is a prize-giving or the opening of a new building. He has done these things with such dignity that he has made himself extremely popular. In this connection I want to pay a tribute to Her Excellency, who has worked extremely hard. She never refuses to open a bazaar or a sale of work when asked, and she attends all kinds of charity concerts and functions. During the three years they have been with us, the two together have made themselves beloved by all sections in Northern Ireland.
Casting aside the irrelevancies which have been brought forward in connection with the Bill, therefore, I hope that the House will give a unanimous Second Reading to the Bill.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Before entering into the discussion of any Irish matter the House ought always to bear in mind—if hon. Members on this side will permit me to say so—some wise words of the present Prime Minister. It is true they were spoken a long time ago but, in my respectful view, they are just as true today as when they were spoken originally. Speaking in Bradford in March, 1914, the Prime Minister said:
We must be careful that the honest necessities of the Ulster case do not suffer from their

entanglement with Tory Party interests and intrigue.
That is peculiarly appropriate to this Measure. If the hon. Lady the Member for Down, North (Mrs. Ford) will allow me to say so, it seemed to me that she was attempting to make a party point about the loyalty or otherwise of those who voted for her; and attempting to use the office of the Governor as some part of a political approach to the question. It would be unfortunate if we did that.
We must all remember that the Irish situation at present is difficult and dangerous. Without going into the rights or wrongs of it, it ought to be said from both sides of this House that there is, unfortunately, a long tradition of violence in Irish politics. One can see from the present trend of events in Ireland that, for various reasons, persons are turning again towards violence. It is with that background that we should approach and deal with any Irish Measure. On this side of the House we ought to say that we do not believe those problems can be solved by violence and we think it is an entirely wrong method of approach.
It is a situation where there is rising unemployment. It is a situation where the approach to unemployment is often a political and a sectarian one. I do not want to go into the matter at great length. I only want to remind the House of what was said by a former Member, Mr. Teevan, shortly before he was chosen by the party opposite to represent them in this House. Speaking of the great danger of the enormous increase in the Roman Catholic population, he said:
When I said at Enagh Lough that I felt that if fewer houses and jobs were given to Roman Catholics the position could be remedied, I was immediately subject to a bitter attack from the opposition. But I am not going to desist from my statements in this connection, for I firmly believe that it is due to the treacherous policy of allowing houses, farms and jobs to go to our opponents that we find ourselves having to fight for our lives today.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I fail to see how this conies within the limited objects with which the Bill before us deals.

Mr. Bing: I appreciate the point, Mr. Speaker. The argument I was just coming to was that it is against a background of


unemployment, and the official Conservative policy in Northern Ireland towards unemployment, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Home Secretary conies to the House and says, "What shall we do about Northern Ireland? Why, the first economic problem we must deal with is the salary of the Governor."

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I am willing to make every allowance as long as the hon. and learned Gentleman keeps clearly in his mind the distinction between background and foreground. It seems to me, however, that he is bringing the background into the foreground of the discussion.

Mr. Bing: I thought, Sir, that the foreground which I am coming to now would stand out all the more clearly if I first sketched in the background.
For that reason I think it unfortunate, when we turn again to the affairs of Northern Ireland, that we turn first to the salary of the Governor, and that this should be in the first Clause of the Bill which has not had the examination that it requires. For example, there are the powers given to the Northern Ireland Government to alter these rather technical provisions of the law.
There may be a good reason for altering them, but one of the reasons for keeping them the same is that the law of the Irish Republic has continued to be the old English law. If we now allow the Northern Ireland Government to change the law there, they may make it more modern, but once again we widen the differences between the two parts of Ireland. In this case the gain may be worth it—it may not be—but that is the attitude in which we should approach this matter, and to that aspect the Home Secretary paid no attention at all. He merely said it would be more convenient. He did not consider why it was that these limitations were placed on those Parliaments.
Now I turn to what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory). I welcome the opportunity of following him. I always marvel that the hon. Gentleman is so passionately in favour of the unity of Poland and so passionately against the unity of his country. However, it makes his approach the fresher and the more interesting. He made a comparison which is entirely beside the point. In trying to justify the

high salary which it is suggested should be paid to the Governor of Northern Ireland, he compared him with the Governor-General of New Zealand. I look round the Chamber, but I do not see any hon. Members from New Zealand. It is just because the Governor of Northern Ireland does not represent an independent State that it is wrong that he should have the salary and allowances which go with such a post.
The real trouble is that the Government of Northern Ireland are trying to have it both ways but the Northern Ireland State is too poor in itself to support having it both ways. It is too poor to maintain all the trappings at the top of an independent State, not being an independent State, and at the same time pay decent rates for unemployment insurance and the like. It is true that there is an agreement with this country which reinsures the insurance rate.
I want to ask the Joint Under-Secretary exactly how the expenditure of the fund is to be controlled. How are we to judge? Who is to audit the accounts of the Governor of Northern Ireland to ascertain whether he has spent the amounts on the purposes for which the fund was intended? I can illustrate the difficulty by a quotation from what the late Comptroller and Auditor General in Northern Ireland said when speaking of these financial arrangements and dealing with the social services. He said:
The financial agreements of 1948 and 1949 … have sacrificed the last shred of constitutional independence on the financial side. The decisions of officials are endorsed by an illusory body, the Joint Exchequer Board, which never meets.
Are we to have the same arrangements for the auditing of the accounts? Will it be a Joint Exchequer Board matter? Will it be decided by the Joint Exchequer Board or the English Auditor General? Will it be an English responsibility—a British imperial responsibility, as the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) would say? The Auditor General, speaking on this matter, said:
Northern Ireland is in many aspects converted into a new brand of Crown Colony, though it maintains the state and trappings of an independent legislature. …
That comes not from a party politician like myself or the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. P. O'Neill); those are the views of the late Comptroller and


Auditor General for Northern Ireland, one of the most distinguished of all Northern Ireland civil servants. That is his view of the position. He goes on to say:
Its Government clings to those constitutional powers which it considers necessary to maintain itself in office and to hold intact the separation of Northern Ireland from the rest of Ireland—the electoral laws, the powers relating to the police and the lesser courts of law, control over local authorities, surveillance of labour movements from across the border, control of the liquor trade, of dog races, and of education; but, apart from powers such as these, with which it will brook no interference, it has de facto, if not de jure, abdicated its function of independent action or original thought.
If the Government has abdicated its function of independent action or original thought, it is not the salary of the Governor that we should raise. When the House discussed the salaries of hon. Members, it took a very different view of the needs and responsibilities of hon. Members from Northern Ireland. I am not making any plea for English hon. Members, but Northern Ireland hon. Members have very great difficulties in representing an area so far away and I should have thought that it would have been much better to use the money for giving slightly higher salaries to Northern Ireland hon. Members than to have used it in the manner suggested.
The Opposition spotlights the idea of raising the salary of the Governor of Northern Ireland at a time of acute economic crisis in Northern Ireland. This House may be doing great harm to itself and to Northern Ireland if it carries through this proposal. If the Northern Ireland Government advised on this matter, it showed little political judgment. Northern Ireland has maintained a Conservative Government since 1922, and the fact that it has no political judgment now is merely a natural result of that state of affairs.
It is a very grave and dangerous thing at this moment to come forward with the big proposal to increase the salary of the Governor. What will be thought? Perhaps we shall hear from the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Wellwood), where there are people who have been unemployed for most of their adult lives and are now having their National Assistance cut. What will all these people

think when they find that all that the British Parliament is concerned about is raising the salary of the Governor? The hon. Lady the Member for Down, North spoke about "fervent loyalty." Does she think that that is the way to obtain fervent loyalty, by showing that all we are interested in is the salary of the Governor instead of the welfare of the poorer people in Northern Ireland who are suffering greater hardship than people in any other part of the United Kingdom, and yet it is this part of the United Kingdom which chooses to raise the salaries of the officials?
That is the issue with which we are presented. It seems to me that there ought to be an explanation from Northern Ireland hon. Members. Some of them have not yet spoken. Perhaps some of them have been informed by the Northern Ireland Government that it is setting on foot movements to deal with the economic problems of people other than the Governor and that it just happened that his economic difficulties came to be dealt with first. Let us have some assurance that something is being done in other quarters. Does not the hon. Lady think that there are others in Northern Ireland who have expenses which they cannot meet?

Mrs. Ford: We in Northern Ireland are only too pleased when hon. Members opposite come over and see some of our problems, but those problems are always under review on this side of the House by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister and, although we are glad of any help, we are well able to take care of ourselves.

Mr. Bing: I appreciate the hon. Lady's concern for the unemployed of Northern Ireland, but what I do not follow is how the raising of the salary of the Governor will assist the unemployed in their present difficulties. I hoped that the hon. Lady was intervening to explain that. It is all very well to invite Labour hon. Members to advise the Conservative Government of Northern Ireland, but, so far as I know, they have never taken that advice. It does not seem to be sufficient in the present grave situation to invite some people over there and then not take their advice.

Mr. Callaghan: We were invited not by the Northern Ireland Government but


by persons who represent the Northern Ireland people. While we were happy to tender our advice to Northern Ireland, it was not the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Conservative Government to take the advice.

Mr. Bing: I appreciate my hon. Friend's position in the matter, but it is not much use the hon. Lady adopting him now at such a late stage. Are we to be told, before the debate ends, what it is proposed to do?
The other purposes of the Bill are extraordinarily obscure. The last Clause deals with the powers of coroners. Nobody has told us exactly why it is necessary to embark on this matter. One thing is absolutely certain and that is that in the Northern Ireland Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act there is a special Section which enables the Government to prohibit the holding of inquests. If they can prohibit the holding of inquests, I do not know why they should not be able to choose coroners. It is of some significance that the reason given for this Clause at the time was that the Government could not rely on the coroners.
One of the reasons for keeping to this Government the reserve power of the appointment of judges and others has been to attempt to secure some degree of justice in Northern Ireland. It has been felt that the British Parliament could not allow this power to be entrusted to the Conservative Government of Northern Ireland. It was, therefore, a reserve power and always a reserve power to this Parliament.
It may be that it is perfectly all right to allow the Government of Northern Ireland to appoint coroners, but, in view of what was originally said about them and the powers they took and still hold, it seems very odd that at this stage this little power has crept in. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will deal with the Northern Ireland (Special Powers) Act when he replies to the debate and with that provision which enables the prohibition of inquests. Perhaps we can have an undertaking from Northern Ireland that, if we pass this Clause, as a quid pro quo they will give up the power of prohibiting inquests.

7.2 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Hyde: The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and some of his hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate have endeavoured to relate the principal part of this Bill, the proposed increase in the salary of the Governor-General of Northern Ireland, to the background of the unemployment position in Northern Ireland. In some ways that is a little unfair, although it may be legitimate.
It has also been suggested that this question of unemployment, to which you, Sir, have permitted reference to be made, is one which has come to light largely through the recent visit of various hon. Members from the other side of the House to Northern Ireland, and that the Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies have taken no interest in this at all. That is entirely false and misleading. As the Home Secretary and other Ministers will bear out, all Northern Ireland Unionist Members have been unfailing in their pressure on the Imperial Government to help us in this question, and we are satisfied that they are doing everything that they can. I do not wish to say anything more on that.
I should like now to make just a few remarks on the general nature of this Bill, which is really an amending Bill to what we in Northern Ireland regard as the basis of our Constitution, namely, the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. That Act was essentially a compromise Act. It was an honest endeavour to end the unfortunate civil strife which had been prevailing in Ireland during the previous four years. It is only fair to state that none of the Ulster Unionist Members at the time of the passage of that Act in 1920 wanted the Act at all. They would have much preferred Ulster to remain entirely within the jurisdiction and administration of this Parliament at Westminster, just as do Scotland and Wales today.
For that reason, none of the Ulster Unionist Members in 1920 voted for the Government of Ireland Act, but they did nothing to oppose it, as they were prepared to accept it as a solution to the age-old problem of Ireland. Having accepted the Act, our leader at that time, Lord Carson, said that we would do our best to make it work. For the past 34 years, it has been generally agreed that


all but a very small subversive minority in Northern Ireland have honestly tried to make that Act work and have worked it loyally. It is not a perfect Act, but on the whole it has operated pretty well. It has given us a Governor and a local Parliament, and at the same time retained representation of Northern Ireland in this Imperial Parliament.
Since 1920, the Act has required some, but relatively little, amendment, and such changes as have taken place have been designed—as in the present Bill—chiefly to enable the Northern Ireland Parliament to alter Acts passed by this House before 1920 and by the old Irish Parliament before 1800. They were Acts which were applicable solely to Ireland. This Bill does extend in some particulars the powers of the Northern Ireland Parliament. It may be argued that the Bill should go further and give greater powers, but that is something with which I do not wish to deal at the present stage.
The Bill briefly deals with one or two quite minor legal matters and the question of the Governor's salary. So far as the small legal and administrative changes are concerned, I was rather surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch indicating his opposition to these changes on the ground that they would be altering the old English law which obtained before 1920 in the whole of Southern Ireland.
I am surprised that someone of the learning of the hon. and learned Gentleman should refer to old English law, because practically all the law was passed either by the old Irish Parliament before 1800, or, after 1800, by the United Kingdom Parliament exclusively applying to Ireland, such legislation as is referred to in the Schedule of the present Bill, acts like the Lord Lieutenants' and Lord Chancellors' Salaries (Ireland) Act. The Summary Jurisdiction Act, and the Annual Revision of Rateable Property (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1860.

Mr. Bing: The hon. and gallant Member has rather misunderstood my point. I was referring to Clause 3 of the Bill, which deals with the power to alter the rather out-of-date rules in regard to inheritance. The Acts to which he has referred are dealt with in other Clauses.

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at Clause 3, he must agree that what it is sought to change is something which is quite archaic and out of date.
Reference has been made to a Committee presided over by a learned county court judge which considered the question of intestate succession in Northern Ireland and made certain recommendations, but those cannot be implemented until the present Bill becomes law. It is surely archaic that, in the case of an intestacy where no heirs can be found, property can, in certain circumstances, escheat to the mesne lord, or the lord of the manor. It is entirely archaic, and the hon. and learned Gentleman will hardly wish to perpetuate such an anomaly.
In Clause 2, in the same way, there is authority for appeals by way of case stated to go directly from the magistrates' court, or court of quarter sessions, to the court of appeal without the inconvenience and expense of appealing first to a divisional court. There is also the difficulty in Northern Ireland that there is a very small High Court bench from which a divisional court may be constituted for that purpose. There are only two High Court judges and two Appeal Court judges in addition to the Lord Chief Justice. It is most important that this Clause should have effect, because many of the appeals are in respect of rating and valuation matters, and there is about to be a general revaluation of property which which will result in appeals.
The remaining legal matters are trifling. For instance, it is surely right that the statutory rules about the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland should be made available, just as are similar rules in this country. The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch referred to the coroners. He is mistaken in supposing that the special power to prohibit coroners from holding inquests has been retained. It certainly was during the troubled period after the institution of the Northern Ireland Government in 1920.
The power was used for a time but it is a good many years since it was withdrawn, and it has not been reintroduced. Coroners have many other duties to perform, such as the holding of inquests into malicious damage to property, fires, and so on. The coroners have rather special duties compared with those of their


opposite numbers in this part of the United Kingdom.
When we consider the proposed increase in the salary of the Governor, it is worth while looking at the history of the matter. In the 1920 Act it was the intention that the old office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should be carried on, and that his jurisdiction should continue to extend over the whole country. The 1920 Act also provided for the setting up of a Parliament in Dublin with similar power to that in Belfast, but in Southern Ireland the 1920 Act became a dead letter.
Those in control in the South had already set up their own Parliament, the Dail, and this was eventually recognised in the Irish Free State Act, 1922. That Act provided, among other matters, that in Northern Ireland the powers of the Lord Lieutenant should devolve upon the Governor, who should be specially appointed.
This point is worth mentioning in passing, especially in view of what the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch said about religious discrimination. It was expressly made clear that there should be no religious disqualification. It is quite open for Her Majesty to appoint a Roman Catholic Governor of Northern Ireland. In the same way, there is no religious discrimination against the holders of civil offices. In the very small High Court bench today one of the judges is a Roman Catholic, and the first Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland was also of that persuasion.
For nearly a century before the passing of the 1920 Act—in fact, since 1832—the salary of the Lord Lieutenant was not £8,000 or £10,000 a year, but £20,000. The salary of the newly-appointed Governor of Northern Ireland was fixed at £8,000, which was a considerable reduction, and out of it he had to pay his expenses. This figure has continued unchanged for over 30 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory) put very clearly the point that we know that the first two Governors—especially the Duke of Abercorn—were obliged to meet many of these expenses out of their own pockets.
It is only right that the Governor should be able to do his job with the dignity suitable to Her Majesty's repre-

sentative in this part of the United Kingdom, and without cost to himself in the process. In the circumstances I hope that this Measure will be given an unopposed Second Reading, for it is for the good of the people of Northern Ireland. It has the support of the Government and Parliament of Northern Ireland and also of those Ulster Unionist Members who sit in this House.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: I do not wish to be unduly provocative because, if I am, some other Ulster Unionist Members might feel compelled to speak, and I am reluctant to cause such an ordeal to be inflicted on the House. I should like to say a few words in reply to those Unionist Members who have spoken. I am sorry that I cannot reply to the hon. Lady for Down, North (Mrs. Ford), because she did not say anything.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Professor D. Savory) made the astonishing statement that in this connection, or in anything to do with the Governor's office, partition was irrelevant. I thought that that was the most relevant feature of all. I do not intend to speak this evening on partition. My views on the subject are very well known and I have other comments which I wish to make, but I should have thought that without partition there would have been no Governor at all and, therefore, the Bill would not have been before the House. Not for the first time, I am unable to follow the hon. Gentleman's process of reasoning.
The hon. and gallant Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde) has been telling us that the Ulster Unionist Members have been unfailing in their pressure upon the Minister of Labour and others during a very long period, bringing to their notice the high incidence of unemployment in Northern Ireland. I should like to ask him, or any other Ulster Unionist Member, how many visits he paid to the Ministry of Labour at any time when the Labour Government were in office.
I am willing to give way if any hon. Member will tell me how many times they saw the Minister of Labour. Their silence is more eloquent than it usually is.

Sir D. Savory: I can only say constantly. At times I saw him every week.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now that the hon. Gentleman has received an answer, perhaps we can pass on to the Bill. I have allowed references to unemployment, but it is an abuse of the rules to go into the question in any detail on such a slender basis as that provided by the Bill.

Mr. Delargy: I was merely trying to reply to what has been said by certain hon. Members opposite, Sir.
I draw attention to Clause 1, which makes fresh provision for the salary and expenses of the Governor. I certainly intend no personal disrespect to the present holder of the office. He is personally unknown to me, though the little I have heard about him is certainly to his credit, but it must be apparent to everybody that the office is a sinecure. The duties are perhaps the most microscopic of any that constitute a sinecure at the disposal of the Government—and that is saying something. Indeed, if the office were abolished tomorrow nobody would be the loser except those people who delight to go to the Governor's receptions at Hillsborough.
No one would be the loser if the office were abolished, and the British taxpayer would benefit by the amount of money which we are asked to sanction today. We are asked to vote a very considerable amount—an amount which I consider to be far too substantial. Here we are giving £14,000 a year, £10,000 of which is tax-free, to a gentleman who, in return for this vast sum of money, is asked to perform a few ceremonial functions, most of which are useless.
He is receiving a far greater sum than is the Prime Minister of this country. While I do not approve of the actual work being done by the present Prime Minister, I must agree that he does do some work. Here we are paying this enormous sum of money to a person who merely opens Parliament once a year, signs a few documents and gives a few receptions. And, I repeat, this money has to be found entirely by the British taxpayer. It is high time somebody raised his voice in protest on behalf of the British taxpayer, who is already heavily overburdened.
As has already been said, it is particularly unfortunate that we are showing such excessive generosity to the Governor of Northern Ireland when Northern Ireland people are suffering from unemployment. In deference to your wishes, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to pursue the

economic argument about unemployment in Northern Ireland in the detail in which I had hoped to do. But I must refer to one aspect of it and I am not referring to the economic aspect. It is an aspect which might come within the ambit of the responsibilities of the Governor himself. It is true that the percentage figure for the entire Province is itself high, but much more significant is that in the City of Derry the percentage is 20. In Newry the percentage is 25—

Captain Orr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member is producing certain figures capable of rebuttal. You have ruled that we cannot go into detail on the matter. If I seek to catch your eye later on, shall I have an opportunity to deal with this in detail?

Mr. Speaker: I was listening to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) to hear what was the relevance of his argument to the Bill, which is concerned with the salary of the Governor. The hon. Member prefaced what he was saying by stating that it was relevant to the issue, and I believed him. But I must say that at first glance I do not see that the different percentages of unemployment in different towns can possibly be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr. Delargy: I hope to show in two minutes, or even less, that it has very great relevance indeed. It so happens that those two towns have strong nationalist majorities, strong anti-Unionist majorities. Therefore, it would appear that the problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland applies more to the nationalists than to anyone else. It is not only economic.
Furthermore, and more significant, these two towns happen to be border towns. They happen to be danger spots. Their nationalist feelings, already exacerbated, are now outraged by this grave economic burden of unemployment. Trouble may arise, troops may be moved in and the responsibilities of the Governor will be more severe than they are now. I therefore maintain that the considerations of unemployment, particularly in Derry and Newry, are relevant to the consideration of an increase in the salary of the Governor.

Mr. Speaker: I have every desire to assist the hon. Member. I see what he


means. But he will agree with me that it would be quite improper on this Bill to go into the details of unemployment. The point he has made is a short one, and he has made it. I hope that we may now pass to other parts of the Bill.

Mr. Delargy: I had hoped to develop the point at greater length, but, of course, I accept your Ruling, Sir.
The Minister said that this was a reform which was long overdue. I have certain reservations about his interpretation of the word "reform." But he is very new to his office, and I would commend to his consideration many other reforms which are very much overdue in Northern Ireland. I hope that he will consider them at an early date and tell the House something about them.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Alan McKibbin: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) and other hon. Members have suggested that the Government of Northern Ireland would be better employed in trying to solve the problem of unemployment than in endeavouring to give a salary increase for the Governor. No one, especially myself, would suggest that the employment situation is as it should be. But the Ulster Government are doing and have done everything they can to deal with this matter, in very difficult circumstances.
Government-assisted firms are providing well-paid work for over 32,000 men and women, and the rate of unemployment has fallen considerably since 1952. The prospects are that there will be a further substantial reduction in the unemployment figures next year. The Government have in hand 250,000 square feet of factory space and British Thomson-Houston, at Larne, require factory space amounting to 1,400,000 square feet—

Mr. Speaker: Order. While allowing some reference to unemployment, I have been trying to prevent the House from going into detail on a matter which is really foreign to this Bill. There have been certain references to unemployment from both sides of the House and, while a limited mention of unemployment may be allowed, I must ask hon. Members not to go into the matter in detail.

Mr. McKibbin: I accept your Ruling, Sir, as did the hon. Member for Thurrock, and I shall not say a lot of the things I should like to have said. The hon. Member for Thurrock did the same, but he got away with quite a lot—probably far more than I shall get away with.
There is one thing I should like to say. Apart from the suggestions against the Ulster Government in this matter, there were suggestions that hon. Members representing Ulster constituencies had done very little. Today, I received a letter from someone who thinks differently, as follows:

"DEAR SIR,

I have been instructed by the Coleraine Unemployment Committee to express our grateful appreciation of your splendid effort on our behalf to have industries established and other means of employment. It is our earnest wish that you will be successful in your efforts.

Yours sincerely, WILLIAM NEVIN.

On behalf of the Unemployment Committee."

The people over there do not seem to think as badly about us as do some people over here, and I would add that there is to be a factory established in Coleraine next year.

7.28 p.m.

Colonel Sir Ralph Clarke: So far, on this side of the House no one has spoken who does not represent a Northern Ireland constituency. I wish to express my full support for this Bill, and I hope that it will receive an unopposed Second Reading. I do so as one who has a very great admiration for the people of Northern Ireland, for their tough, progressive spirit and transcendent loyalty to this country, and also as one who has a number of friends in Northern Ireland and who pays visits there from time to time.
This is quite a simple Bill, and its passing would in no way prejudice the provision of larger legislation at a later date. I feel that some of the arguments against a Second Reading on the ground that there are more important things to consider are, therefore, ill-founded.
After what has been said, I naturally will not refer more than very briefly to the question of unemployment. From my experience of being in Northern Ireland and of talking to Members of its Government, to officials, and to private individuals and friends, I found that the


question of unemployment there is one which causes the very greatest concern to everyone. It is before them all the time, and they are very well aware of it.
One should hesitate to compare figures of unemployment in Northern Ireland with those in this country for the simple reason that, though the manufacturers there sell in the same markets as ourselves, their raw materials, and particularly their fuel, have to be taken over there, and this adds to the cost of what they produce. After manufacture, their goods have to be sent to this country for sale.
I think we are all agreed that the Governor should have an increase in the emoluments of his office. Some hon. Members opposite thought that what the Government were proposing was not enough, while others thought that it was too much. That, surely, is a matter for the Committee stage. The emoluments which the Governor is at present receiving were fixed in a far different sort of world, and at a time when those who took office were expected, very largely, to pay for what it cost them out of their own pockets. The level of taxation has made such a system utterly impossible today.
I wish to associate myself with some of the things that have been said about the present Governor. He and I come from the same village in Sussex. He was a Member of this House, and I have known him for a long time. Everything said about him is very well merited. I hope that this little Bill, the passing of which will really help our friends in Northern Ireland, will be given an unopposed Second Reading. I think that would be a graceful act on the part of this country to the people of a part of the Commonwealth who, as I have already said, are most transcendantly loyal.

7.33 p.m.

Sir David Campbell: There have been many accusations by hon. Members opposite in the course of the debate of a lack of purpose, both on the part of the Government of Northern Ireland and of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, in regard to unemployment, National Assistance, and other matters You. Mr. Speaker.

have very rightly ruled that one cannot go into detail in discussing these matters.
Adequately to reply to the accusations made would necessitate going into the matter in detail, and I hope that an opportunity will be given for the whole matter to be thrashed out in this House. Any suggestions made from either side of the House which would help the Northern Ireland Government and Her Majesty's Government to solve the question of unemployment in Northern Ireland would, I am sure, be welcomed by all the people of Uuster, and certainly by the Ulster Unionist Members.
It has been said that National Assistance in Northern Ireland is dealt with in an entirely different manner from that adopted in this country. The facts are that the Regulations governing National Assistance in Northern Ireland are exactly the same as those in Great Britain, except in two small matters. One is that nobody is held to be entitled to a grant from National Assistance until he has a five years' residence qualification; the other is that Assistance is not grantable to people who are in occupation of more than a certain acreage of land. I suppose that the latter rule is not necessary in Great Britain because the small farming system that exists in Northern Ireland does not exist in this country.

Mr. Michael O'Neill: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the rule about the "bad record of unemployment"?

Sir D. Campbell: One further point. Legislation provides for the setting up of appeal boards in Northern Ireland. Their members consist of either a barrister or a solicitor as chairman, a representative of the employer, and a representative of the employee, who is usually a trade union official. So far as I am aware, these appeal boards are carrying out their work publicly, reasonably, and loyally.

7.36 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: During this debate, several arguments have been advanced from the benches opposite for pausing before giving this Bill a Second Reading. In the course of those arguments, the background of unemployment in Northern Ireland was painted in, and mention was also made of the "unfortunate" administration of the National Assistance Board.
During the course of the debate, I rose twice on points of order in an endeavour to seek to determine the scope of the debate. It has become clear, Mr. Speaker, that in deference to your Ruling these matters cannot be debated today. If they could, some very good arguments could be put forward on all sides, and I, personally, would welcome a very full debate on the question of the unemployment position in Northern Ireland and the administration of the National Assistance Board.
I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Sir D. Campbell) on the unemployment position in Northern Ireland. I would draw the attention of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—

Mr. Callaghan: indicated dissent.

Captain Orr: I am sorry, but I hope that the time may not be long distant when the honour which will make the hon. Gentleman a right hon. Gentleman will be conferred upon him. At the same time, of course, I hope that the occasion will not be any unfortunate return to office of his party.
I wish to draw attention to the fact that there was a very good opportunity of debating the question of unemployment in Northern Ireland in the House this Session, namely, in the debate on the Address. I took the opportunity on that occasion, and I was sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East did not happen to be present so as to give us the benefit of his views upon it.

Mr. Callaghan: I was present.

Captain Orr: Again, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I will amend what I said and say that I am sorry that he did not happen to be there for the purpose of giving us the benefit of his views on that occasion.
One small point has arisen which ought to be dealt with, and with which I want to deal. The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), who was the opening spokesman from the benches opposite, the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and one or two other hon. Members opposite referred to the powers of the Governor of Northern Ireland, and to the possibility that the

allowance of £10,000 might not be adequate to deal with the possible state of violence arising. The idea that the border areas of Ireland are seething with discontent and that there might at any time be a recrudescence of violence in Ireland is a very hypothetical contention.
May I say in all earnestness to hon. Members opposite that the 1920 Act, which this Bill to some degree seeks to modify, brought about a state of affairs in Ireland which has practically done away with the almost natural and continuous state of violence which existed in Ireland prior to 1920? Nothing could be worse for Ireland at the present time than for people to make speeches about possible inflammatory situations and about rising unemployment when, in fact, unemployment is not rising. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, it has decreased since I first raised the matter in this House nearly three years ago.
It is quite improper to paint a picture of that sort. It does no good to anybody. There is nothing worse than exaggerating a position and trying to make political capital out of it. I hope that the party opposite will not continue along those lines, because those lines are fraught with danger. I hope that the Bill will have its Second Reading, and that the Governor will have a long and happy period of office. I hope that the various arrangements proposed in the Bill, and which enable certain types of legislation to be better dealt with, will prove to be to the advantage of everyone, and of the people of Northern Ireland in particular.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I have been reminded during this debate of a previous debate in this House many years ago, when neither you, I think, Mr. Speaker, nor I were here. One of the Irish Members, who was then from the south of that country, wanted to discuss Ireland on a colonial affairs day. He was firmly rebuked by Mr. Speaker, but he managed to hold on to his place, and he made the whole of the references that he wished to make about Ireland by referring to "British Guiana" I have the feeling that a number of my hon. Friends, and, indeed, some hon. Gentlemen opposite, have been nearly as skilful this afternoon in making the points that they wished to make on a matter.


which, as you have rightly ruled, Mr. Speaker, is outside the scope of the Bill.
The difficulty in which you, Sir, and we have all been put is the fault of the Government. They want us to talk about one thing while the people of Northern Ireland want us to talk about another. The people of Northern Ireland are not interested in the salary of the Governor. What they are interested in was impressed upon those of us who visited Northern Ireland just before Christmas; it is their economic future and the problem of getting work for their people. That is why, when we discuss petty matters such as who shall administer coroners' courts, and even greater matters like the salary and expenses of the Governor, we are up against difficulties.
The real problems of Northern Ireland are not being discussed today. [Interruption.] I do not think there is a point of interruption, but I will give way to the hon. and gallant Member.

Captain Orr: It is a point of interruption. The hon. Gentleman has deplored the fact that we do not debate Northern Ireland matters more often in this House. The Opposition have many Supply days at their disposal, but never seek to ask for a debate on Northern Ireland.

Mr. Callaghan: I will gladly come to that point; indeed, I may as well pick it up now.
I made the point clearly that we should be discussing the economic situation instead of the administration of coroners' courts. Now the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks why we do not have further discussions on the economic situation of Northern Ireland. I tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, in so far as it is within the command of the Opposition, there will be further debates on Northern Ireland. We only wish that Ulster Unionist Members had themselves brought pressure to bear upon the Leader of the House, who dispenses the time of the House, to see that Government time is set aside for that purpose. There is no reason why the Opposition should be charged with the responsibility of finding time to debate the situation in Northern Ireland.
Because hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the Ulster Unionist Party, are so tied to

the coat-tails of the Conservative majority, we shall have to find time; and, in the interests of Northern Ireland people, we shall do so. I tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman now that we do not intend to leave this matter alone, however he may ask us to do so, for the reason given by the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Sir R. Clarke), for whom I have a great respect in these matters. We do not intend to leave it alone, because there is a pocket of unemployment in the British Isles numbering 37,000 people and it has been increasing over the last three months. We believe that it should not exist and could be got rid of by the Government of Northern Ireland and Her Majesty's Government if they approached the task with sufficient energy and ability.
We shall persist in raising this matter as far as, and as often as, we can. I warn the House that it may become a little tired of hearing the subject. If only we can persuade Ulster Unionists to take up the call in this House, we may be able to leave it alone, but I say frankly that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) and myself were shocked, when we visited Northern Ireland, to see the economic position of people there. We think that any man of good will who went to Northern Ireland would share our shame that this pocket of unemployment should exist in that part of that country.
Now I should like to turn to this question of the Governor's salary. As the Home Secretary explained, the Governor has been in receipt of a salary of £8,000 a year. After he paid tax, his net salary was £3,337, if I read the financial tables right. We know that the rates of taxation are steeply progressive in this range. Under the proposed new arrangements, his salary is to be reduced to £4,000. According to the financial tables, he will be left with a net salary of £2,287, after paying tax. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will correct me if that is not so. Therefore, a diminution of the Governor's gross income by £4,000 diminishes his net income by only £1,100. That is a measure of the steeply-graduated nature of our Income Tax in these ranges of income.
If the Governor is to receive a substantial expense allowance, this is


equivalent to a very large increase in his gross salary. I pressed the Home Secretary on the question of the taxation of the allowance. If I understand the position now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has explained it, the allowance is to be paid in advance, tax-free, and will not be subject to check by the Auditor General. I will give one or two specimen figures to show what it amounts to.
If the Governor of Northern Ireland should receive £4,000 in expenses—that is a reasonable figure within the maximum of £10,000—it will be equivalent to increasing his net emolument to £6,287 as against his present emolument of £3,337. If he were to receive £5,000 in expenses, his net emolument would be increased to £7,287. If he received the full sum of £10,000, he would get £12,287 as his total emolument. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has paused to think how much one would have to earn in this country to get a tax-free salary of £7,287. It would be a six-figure salary.
The Home Secretary should be aware that this method of paying emoluments in tax-free terms is open to considerable abuse. I am not suggesting that it is being abused in this case, although I wish to make one criticism. I understand that the amount is to be paid in advance; in other words, there is to be no accounting by the Governor for his expenditure. He is presumably to supply an estimate to the Home Secretary of what expenses he hopes, expects, fears, he may incur. The Home Secretary will then vouch for it, and it will be paid. It will not be subject to check at the end of the year by the Auditor General.
That, really, has been the criticism of the nature of the job being done by the Governor. He may not be able to estimate properly either way what his expenditure will be. If in one year a sudden Royal visit descends on him I suppose that he will be able to put in a supplementary claim for any extra expenditure incurred, but it is equally possible that in another year he will not incur all the expenditure. In that case—and this is my reason for going into so much detail on this tax-free side—every £100 of tax-free income not spent on expenses means a very great deal in terms of gross income. That is why I

put it to the Home Secretary that this needs looking into again.
I leave that, and revert to some of the reasons why we have raised certain points, though I do not wish to deal in detail with the points themselves. I was interested to hear one hon. Member opposite say that the Governor should be allowed to do his job in dignity. I think we are all agreed on that, but what comes to my mind equally is the dignity of the unemployed man who is seeking work. I believe that there was a prior charge. on our time; that there was a prior claim on the Government to bring the economic situation of Northern Ireland before the House in advance of legislation dealing with the Governor's salary. That is exactly why we have raised the matter in this way.
I do not think that anyone on this side has suggested that the Bill should be opposed. What we despair of is the Government's sense of priorities which leads them to introduce a Measure like this at a time when unemployment in Northern Ireland has increased over the last three months, and is increasing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth underestimated the position. Were there unemployment in England today in proportion to that which exists in Northern Ireland it would be equivalent to 1¾ million persons. Can the House imagine what would be the nature of the debates, the stormy complexion of the House, and the activities of hon. Members whose constituents were suffering if that were the situation here?
I am amazed at the supineness of people like the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who has 25 per cent. unemployment in his constituency. I am amazed that he does not hound the Government, instead of smiling—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I think the hon. Member is going beyond just a reference to the priorities.

Mr. Callaghan: We shall, no doubt, have an opportunity to come back to this subject in due course.
I turn to a related subject. If I brush the skirts of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I assure you that I have considered the matter carefully, and hope and believe


that you will consider me to be in order. I am sorry to have to do it in this way. I wish we could have spoken in open debate on Northern Ireland, but the problems are so urgent that we feel we must, within the rules of order, exercise what legitimate opportunities we have to make these particular points as well as we can.

Captain Orr: At the moment, the hon. Member is castigating the Government for not giving time for discussion of Northern Ireland affairs and the unemployment position there. It is true that unemployment was worse when he, personally, left office than it is now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is really going into a discussion on unemployment, and that is beyond the scope of this Bill.

Mr. Callaghan: The figure has already been quoted, so I presume that I should not be out of order in requoting it. Unemployment was at its highest in 1952, when it was 10 per cent. In 1952, hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for the administration of Northern Ireland.
I should like to ask—and I apologise for covering the point in this way—whether the allowable expenditure of the Governor of Northern Ireland will be open to include charitable bequests? Could he, for example, start a fund for the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland? If so, I suggest that it would be a very good thing if part of the expenses which are now to be voted to the Governor—and I am dealing specifically with expenses—might be set aside for such a fund. I believe that that would appeal to the people there as showing the Government's desire, if they cannot find them work, at least to find them proper sustenance.
I suggest for example that his expense allowance and his fund might very well be used for dealing with cases such as that of a woman aged 55—in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's constituency—who has had a National Assistance allowance—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Following a precedent which I believe he quoted, the hon. Gentleman is now being very ingenious, but I think that that is stretching the rules of order a little too far.

Mr. Callaghan: If you do not feel that such a fund would be available for

elderly women whose National Assistance is being so cut down that they have to live on 30s. a week, there is really nothing I can say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
Perhaps I can put this point, which would be not only ingenious but could hardly be out of order. In paragraph 3 (a) of the Schedule to the Social Services (Northern Ireland Agreement) Act, 1949, an obligation is laid upon the Northern Ireland Government
to maintain the rates of benefit in respect of assistance grants. …
It comes hard on us to have to consider this sort of Measure when the Government have not satisfied themselves that the terms of the Social Services (Northern Ireland Agreement) Act, 1949, have been carried out. If the Northern Ireland Government are not, in fact, carrying out the terms of this legislation, how can we be certain that we should give them the powers to investigate coroners' courts as contained in the present Bill?
My only comment on what has been said by the hon. Member for Belfast. South (Sir D. Campbell) about the fairness with which the National Assistance regulations are administered is that there are hundreds of people in Northern Ireland who flatly disagree with him. When I was there I was given a bunch of cases of people who felt that they had been badly—improperly—treated. The hon. Member advanced that fairness as a reason for giving the Northern Ireland Government these further powers. I rebut that and say that if these charges can be proved there is no case for giving the Northern Ireland Parliament the powers they seek. These cases exist and there is grave concern and distress in Northern Ireland today which should be remedied.

Captain Orr: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has already had three bites.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin) quoting from a letter he has received from members of the unemployed in Coleraine thanking him for the help he had given them. I am glad that they should have done that, and I am sure that he must merit their thanks. I, too, would like to read a letter which I have received this


morning. It is dated 29th January, 1955, and states:
I have been instructed by the Coleraine Unemployed Committee to express our grateful appreciation of your splendid effort on our behalf to have industries established and other means of employment. It is our earnest wish that you will be successful in your efforts.
We are having a public meeting in the Town Hall on Thursday, 3rd February. We would appreciate a message from you for this meeting.
The difference between the hon. Gentleman and me is that they are apparently content to thank him, but want me to give them a message.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Another letter has been read to the same effect. Now those two letters are equal, and I think we had better abandon the subject.

Mr. McKibbin: I would merely like to say that that is also stated at the end of my letter, but as I had already been called to order, I did not quote that part of it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Mr. Callaghan: I congratulate the people of Coleraine on backing both horses.
All I wish to say, in conclusion, is that I regret that we have to bring these problems here. I regret that we have to fall foul of the Chair in tackling them. I only wish that in Stormont there were some sort of Labour Opposition which did the job instead. If only there were some Labour Members there, we would not have to spend the time of the Imperial Government on these issues.
I do not ask my hon. Friends to oppose this Bill or to divide the House on it. We have made our protest. We have done what we could. We are only voices in the Opposition, but we have done what we could to bring the plight of the people of Northern Ireland to the attention of this House, and, however inconvenient it may be to the Ulster Unionist Members opposite, I promise them that we shall bring it up here again and again until they rise and make certain that their own Government in Stormont and in Westminster solve this tragic human problem.

8.1 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): Almost every speaker in this debate has referred to unemployment, and

I should like to say at the outset that Her Majesty's Government are deeply concerned about the unemployment position in Northern Ireland. I can certainly assure the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) that Her Majesty's Government are making a very careful examination indeed of the proposals to which he and others have referred during this debate.
I think that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) really recognises—though, to keep himself in order, he could not admit it—that matters dealt with in this Bill are not really matters which can be compared in priority with such questions as unemployment. Of course, if anyone has to decide which is the more important question he will probably come down on the side of unemployment, but that does not mean that the House should be precluded from giving consideration to proper matters of another kind, if those matters can be justified on their merits.
I want to deal with the points that have been raised in this debate on the merits of the proposals mentioned in the Bill. The debate has dealt more with Clause 1 of the Bill than with any other part. The purpose of that Clause is to change the basis of payment of the Governor of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to certain figures in that connection. I did not interrupt him because when hon. Members are arguing about figures it is usually inadvisable to do so. They usually go on with their arguments, even when they are told that they are wrong.
The hon. Gentleman assumes that at present the Governor is receiving a salary of £8,000 a year, all actually taxed. Although that £8,000 a year is liable to be taxed, it can be freed from Income Tax by the ordinary rules. That is to say, the Governor can claim tax remission, and as he has to find a considerable amount of necessary expenses out of that sum, I can tell the House, without giving precise figures, that a very considerable part of the £8,000 a year has in the past been paid free of tax; so that the comparison which the hon. Gentleman made is not fair.
The figures which the Bill proposes have been arrived at in a fair and proper way, and I will try to explain the matter


as fully as I can. The right hon. Member for Blyth asked why £10,000 a year had been fixed as the maximum for the allowance. That figure was taken after an examination of the previous spending by the Governor over the past few years. In this connection I could go a little further and say that, as far as we can see at present, the total expenditure which is likely to have to be met under this heading will be about £9,000 a year, but from that there will have to be deducted the amount which the Governor himself will have to provide out of his £4,000 a year as his personal contribution towards running the house. Assuming that that is £1,250 a year, the amount of the allowance is likely to start at about £7,750 a year.

Mr. Callaghan: That would be apart from the £4,000?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is the amount of the allowance. The £4,000 is salary. The Governor would have to find his own share of running the house, which I am taking at £1,250 a year. That would leave him with a balance of £7,750 as his allowance.
Various hon. Members have made guesses about the way in which this allowance would be dealt with, and I think it is right to tell the House how it will in fact be dealt with. First, the Governor will have to provide precise estimates of what he thinks will be required next year for these purposes. Those estimates will be considered by my right hon. and gallant Friend and by the Treasury in exactly the same way as Estimates from a Government Department in this country would be considered, and will be subject to all the usual controls. I think hon. Members will appreciate that it is not very easy to get past the Treasury something that is not strictly justified by the rules. That procedure will have to be carried out before the new method of payment comes into being, and the Governor will then receive that amount of allowance.
One hon. Member asked me how it would be paid, whether the bills would be paid directly by the Government here or whether they would fall to be paid by the Governor himself. The money will be paid to the Governor, who will himself discharge the liability; but at the end of the year, if there is a deficit, it will be for

the Governor to go through all the necessary actions which a Government Department in this country has to go through if it finds that it has a deficit on its Estimate. Correspondingly, if there is a surplus, it will be carried forward and taken into account in the payment for next year. I do not think that the apprehensions that have been expressed by hon. Members opposite will be found to be well-founded when they consider that that is what will have to be done.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), in an interruption, asked a question, and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory) spoke about, the office expenses. My hon. Friend is correct in pointing out that the Government of Northern Ireland will have a new liability under the Bill of meeting the Governor's office expenses. I cannot say precisely what these will be, but it seems probable that they will not be very far short of the £2,000 for which the Northern Ireland Government are escaping liability—so that, on balance, the difference is not very great.
The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) made a number of remarks of a general kind and referred specifically to Clause 5 and the position of coroners. The law relating to coroners in Northern Ireland has never been consolidated, and remains scattered over a fair number of enactments, commencing with the Statute of Westminster, 1275, applied to Ireland by the Irish Statute known as Poyning's Law, 1495.
The Government of Northern Ireland has under consideration plans for the amendment and consolidation of these enactments. They contemplate appointing fewer coroners and enlarging the jurisdiction of those appointed. It is probable that a State pathologist may also be appointed. I do not think that that is an unreasonable step to take, put perhaps I can reassure the hon. and learned Member that the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act of Northern Ireland has no conceivable reference to what is intended to be done under this Clause, nor could it have any reference.

Mr. Bing: Would not the hon. Gentleman at the same time press the Northern Ireland Government to remove from the body of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act this curious provision enabling them to prohibit the holding of


inquests? It seems to me desirable that if they are by law to appoint coroners and pathologists, they should hold inquests.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That has nothing to do with this provision, and I should be out of order if I tried to deal with it within the scope of the Bill. The other steps proposed to be taken are of a similarly useful character. No detailed criticisms of them have been raised in any part of the House. I think that this is a useful Measure, and I hope that its passage will receive the unanimous agreement of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as to the salary and expenses of the Governor of Northern Ireland, it is expedient to authorise the payment to the said Governor out of the Consolidated Fund of—

(a) a salary at the rate of four thousand pounds per annum; and
(b) an allowance in respect of expenses of an amount not exceeding ten thousand pounds per annum.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Bing: I am sorry to delay the House for a moment, but this seems a convenient point at which we can perhaps get a little more information than the Under-Secretary of State was able to give us about the financial liability of this country and the commitment which we are undertaking. I understand from what was said earlier that there is also to be a provision transferring to the Ministry of Works the cost of maintaining the buildings. I do not know whether that is so or not, but it certainly does not feature in the Money Resolution.
We are being asked to make provision for the payment out of the Consolidated Fund, first, of the salary and then of an allowance in respect of expenses up to the

sum of £10,000; but we were told by the Minister that nothing like this sum would be needed, in the first place because there would be a rebate of salary, and, in the second place, because the expenses would not amount to the full £10,000. I think it is unfortunate that we should be asked to pass a Bill granting these large sums and yet not be told until the very last moment that the cost was to be less than the full amount provided for in the Bill.
If it is not to be the full amount provided for in the Bill, then it is desirable that the Government should take back the Money Resolution and look at it again. Obviously this Money Resolution is a matter of controversy because, as the House will remember, we earlier passed a Motion exempting it from the Ten o'clock Rule in order that the matter might receive adequate discussion. It seems to me that it has not been the subject of as full a discussion as is desirable, and in those circumstances I hope that the Government will withdraw it.

Sir D. Savory: After all the explanations which have been given by the Ministers, I should have thought that this matter of salary was as clear as it possibly could be. First of all, we have a reduction from £8,000 to £4,000, and then we have this contingent liability for expenses amounting to £10,000, all of which is to be checked by the Home Secretary and by the Treasury.
Is that excessive when we compare payments made to the Governors of our Colonies—and I have already quoted the case of New Zealand where the Governor gets a salary of £5,000 and £5,000 for expenses. Let us take, for a moment, the Isle of Man. The Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Man gets a salary of £3,000 and a tax-free allowance of £2,000. if hon. Members look at the Foreign Office Estimates they will see that in many cases, while the salary of an ambassador is fixed, he is allowed as much as £20,000 for expenses.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. I understand that the hon. Member is now defending the principle of paying this sum to the Governor of Northern Ireland. I thought the House had already accepted that principle and that what we were considering was the Money Resolution in support of it. Is it in order to debate the principle again?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It seems to me that it is in order. The Money Resolution provides for the specific sum and, as I understand it, the argument of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory) seeks to justify the sum in the Money Resolution.

Mr. Silverman: But he is talking not about that but about New Zealand and the Isle of Man.

Sir D. Savory: I am only giving comparisons. Surely I am allowed to do that. The hon. Member does not seem to have read the subject before the House and he does not seem to have read the Financial Resolution which we are discussing. Of course I am in order.
I am perfectly entitled to make a reference to similar cases to show that the salary which is now proposed is not excessive. I cannot understand how there can be any opposition to it when hon. Members have been told that the present Governor, his predecessor, and even the Duke of Abercorn were out of pocket to the extent of thousands of pounds.
Is it fair to ask Her Majesty's representative to go to Northern Ireland and carry out the functions which he has to perform—honorary functions but, nevertheless, exacting functions—and be out of pocket in doing so? Should he be out of pocket because of his heroic efforts to pay visits to various towns in Northern Ireland and to undertake every kind of official function which he can possibly be asked to undertake? At the same time, have we the right to ask him to maintain these functions at his own expense and to be out of pocket? Hon. Members, surely, must sympathise with the Governor who, out of his own pocket, has to pay sums which it is necessary to provide in order that he may maintain the dignity of his office.
Surely this is one of the most reasonable propositions ever brought before this House. If hon. Members would only study the estimates they would see what an ambasador gets as salary and as much as £20,000, to my certain knowledge, as expenses. The Governor of Northern Ireland is acting very much as an ambassador. He represents Her Majesty in Northern Ireland and we must allow him fair play to be able to live without incurring debt and being financially embarrassed.

Mr. Bing: Will the hon. Member tell us whether he considers, for example, the position of the Governor of Northern Ireland as more important than the British Ambassador to Poland or to the United States?

Sir D. Savory: I think it is of equal importance.

Mr. Delargy: The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory), despite all his noise and indignation, has missed the point. He has missed several points which have been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing). The hon. Baronet has talked about the Governor of the Isle of Man and the Governor of New Zealand. He rebuked my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) for not having read the Bill, but apparently he has not read the Bill, nor the Money Resolution. He thinks that because the Under-Secretary of State explained about the £14,000 he explained everything, but one point made by my hon. and learned Friend was what was the liability of the Ministry of Works? That has not been explained to us and, quite obviously, the hon. Member for Antrim, South does not know anything about it.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Perhaps I might answer that question straight away. The position is that the transfer of Hillsborough is not to be under the Bill. My right hon. and gallant Friend explained on the Second Reading of the Bill that the transfer would be done under general powers already existing and that the Bill was not required for that. It may be that it will be necessary to have legislation in Northern Ireland to carry that into effect, but it is not necessary under this Bill. Therefore, it is not a matter that comes within the terms of the Money Resolution.

Mr. Bing: Does it mean that there will be another application to this country for £9,000 in addition to the salary we are voting in this Money Resolution? Will application be made to this country for £9,000 for the maintenance of Hillsborough plus the £4,000 we are voting now and the £10,000 expenses, making £23,000 per year, for the Governor of Northern Ireland?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not know whether I am in order in speaking again to try to clear up the point. The position


is that there is certain property which it is proposed to transfer to the Ministry of Works. As the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is sometimes rather less quick to appreciate, when one has property transferred it probably costs something to keep it up. That, of course, is a fact, but does not arise under the Money Resolution.

Mr. Michael O'Neill: One point which has been overlooked is that before we call on the people of this country to put their hands in their pockets and make such an enormous contribution of taxpayers' money, we should consider whether the expenditure of such money is really appreciated by the people. I know Northern Ireland possibly better than any other hon. Member in the Committee. I know the feelings of the farmers and of the workers. I represent them on several local government bodies. Never once have I heard of any popular demand for a single Clause of this Measure.

The Deputy-Chairman: Discussion of the Bill, of course, is not in order. The discussion must be directed to the terms of the Money Resolution.

Mr. O'Neill: The point I want to make, with due respect, is that before we vote money out of the taxpayers' pockets we must take into consideration the ability of people to pay that taxation.
It must be borne in mind that we are direct taxpayers to the British Exchequer. This Parliament still controls five-sixths of the expenditure and the total revenue in Northern Ireland, and we must be regarded as making our contribution to the £23,000 being voted tonight. Therefore, I hold that it is within our competence to judge our ability to pay this extra taxation. If our people are unemployed and there is depression in agriculture, our people are not in a position to meet this extra taxation. Moreover, we have a right to demand from this House that if it is prepared to extend £23,000 in Northern Ireland that sum should be expended where it is most needed. If we were a charitable Government we should begin at the bottom rather than at the top, and would devote this money to people in need of it rather than to those whom we consider are not in need of it.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not in order to discuss things which are not in the Money Resolution. The hon. Member is in order in objecting to this amount, but cannot go into the ways of raising it.

Mr. O'Neill: In my opinion, the salary of the Governor which is being asked for is unjustified if it takes the place of other reliefs which we hold would be justified and which we have a right to demand of this Parliament. I suggest that if I am not in order altogether I am very near to being in order.
I have heard references to the office of the Governor. I have even heard it suggested that the expenses payment of £10,000 a year is not nearly sufficient. I have heard it suggested that there is a possibility we may have violence in Ireland, and that the Governor might be expected to call out the Army. That would entail considerable expense on his part. [Interruption.] I have seen violence in Ireland. I have seen violence in Enniskillen and in Derry, and yet I have never seen the Governor call out the troops when people were battened and bludgeoned by thugs of policemen for holding an ordinary peaceful procession.

8.30 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: This is not even near to being in order on the Money Resolution.

Mr. O'Neill: If we are to allow the Governor £10,000 expenses, and if we are to assume that half of those expenses is for protecting the people from certain abuses, if that is part of the office of Governor, we want to know whether the Governor is in a position to give that protection, and whether he will give it.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Money Resolution has nothing whatever to do with that.

Mr. O'Neill: Take, for example, the position in Enniskillen. It was a peaceful assembly. It was the occasion of an ordinary—

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member looks at the terms of the Money Resolution, he will see that it has nothing to do with Enniskillen or violence.

Mr. O'Neill: But Enniskillen has quite a lot to do with the Governor.
In any case, if this Parliament is in a position to extend this charity towards Northern Ireland, it should be extended to those institutions to which the people would like it to be extended. Take, for example, the Mater Hospital, in Belfast—

The Deputy-Chairman: I really must ask the hon. Member to direct his mind to the Money Resolution.

Mr. O'Neill: According to the relationships between this Parliament and the Parliament of Northern Ireland, there is a guarantee that the social services will be maintained on an equal parity.

The Deputy-Chairman: That does not arise under this Money Resolution at all. The Money Resolution provides for two things: for
a salary at the rate of four thousand pounds per annum
out of the Consolidated Fund, and
an allowance in respect of expenses of an amount not exceeding ten thousand pounds per annum.
That is the scope of the Money Resolution.

Mr. O'Neill: I must give way on that, but there is another point on which I have to be satisfied.
How will this money be spent? Presumably, a lot of the £10,000 for expenses will be spent on entertainment. The people of Northern Ireland see very little of this entertainment. In fact, I honestly believe that these afternoon tea parties and social events are merely recruiting material for the Tory Party in the Six Counties, and as such they should be no concern whatever of the Governor. If the Government expect a unanimous vote from both sides of this House for the £23,000, some reasonable guarantee should be given that the entertainment offered by the Governor will not be used exclusively for one particular political party. That is what is being done in the North of Ireland. I do not blame the Governor. It is a practice that came in with the establishment of partition, and will probably remain as long as partition lasts.
Our only remedy is to reduce this expenditure. I think that the expenditure on the Governor's office is entirely unreasonable. Ten thousand pounds in

expenses is to be devoted almost exclusively to entertainment, high faluting parties, and that sort of thing, in a community of little more than a million people, which is barely the population of Glasgow or Birmingham.
I doubt very much whether any of those communities would agree to contribute such a substantial sum for purely ceremonial and formal duties. It is ridiculous and uncalled for, and I hope that in future when this House considers matters relating to Northern Ireland, and is in a position to extend its charity, it will seek many other avenues, avenues that are of more use, and certainly of more advantage, to the people.

Mr. Robens: There are one or two points which might be cleared up arising from the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary of State. I was interested in what was said by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. M. O'Neill) about the expenses being used mainly for recruitment to the Tory Party. I assume that my hon. Friend was referring to the afternoon teas and other things which take place, to which perhaps hon. Members of the Tory Party go.
It is a fact that when two members of Her Majesty's Privy Council from this side of the House were over in Ireland no effort was made by the Governor to send any formal invitation or even to recognise that they were within his territory. It may well be that the observations of my hon. Friend may be conveyed to him. There is a certain courtesy which a Governor might extend at least to members of the Privy Council, and some of the £10,000 might be expended on a 2½d. stamp to acknowledge that they are on his territory.
As I understood, the Joint Under-Secretary of State said that on the basis of previous expenses he estimated that the actual expenses will be about £9,000. That being the case, it is clear that the Governor has been dipping into his own pockets, ever since he was appointed, to maintain his position. In spite of having a salary and expenses account of £8,000, he has had to contribute £1,000 out of his own pocket to maintain that position—

Sir D. Savory: Much more, many thousands.

Mr. Robens: In that case this £10,000 is inadequate, and therefore the amount we are now being asked to agree to will not be sufficient. The Joint Under-Secretary of State said that the Governor would make an estimate of his expenses for the year, and that an allowance would be made upon that basis. If, however, he overspent, presumably a Supplementary Estimate would be prepared and the overspent amount, provided that it was not more than the total of £10,000, would be provided.
The hon. Gentleman also said that if the Governor underspent his estimate, the surplus would be carried forward. Surely that cannot be correct. Estimates stand on their own for the year, and surpluses on Estimates cannot be carried forward to another fiscal year. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clear up that point because, if the carry-forward procedure were to be adopted, we should soon be exceeding the amount for which Parliament is properly about to make provision.

Mr. Ede: As much of this discussion as has been in order is long overdue, I hope that the matters which were not in order may be discussed in the near future on an occasion when they can be in order, because when I was responsible, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman now is, for the affairs in Northern Ireland, I was perturbed at the difficulty of analysing the financial situation of the Governor, and of meeting the situation that would undoubtedly arise in the not distant future, when it would be well-nigh impossible to get anyone to fill this office because of the expenses attached to it.
The arrangement whereby there is a salary—which ought to be appropriate to the duties which have to be discharged as a statesman and Governor—should be separate from any allowance that may be made to the Governor in respect of the expenses he has to incur. Therefore, I welcome the division now being made and, as far as those two sums are concerned, what the House will give its mind to is whether reasonably appropriate figures have been inserted in the Bill; that is to say, whether £4,000 is an appropriate figure for the salary, and an expense account of two-and-a-half times as much at the maximum is also an appropriate figure.
I have some sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. M. O'Neill). Whereas when one goes to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, which similarly fall within the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary, one meets at official functions people who support the majority and people who support the minority in the legislative assemblies of those places, when one goes to an official function in Northern Ireland one meets only the members of one party.

Sir D. Savory: The others refuse the invitations which are sent to them.

Mr. Ede: Even if they do, that does not alter the truth of my comment. That is one of the difficulties that presents itself to anyone who tries to observe the ordinary decencies of an ordered democracy in the atmosphere of Northern Ireland. I do not want to say any more about it than that, but what I have said cannot be denied.
I am a little concerned by the explanation of the Joint Under-Secretary about the way in which the money is to be accounted for. We were given what appeared to me to be a somewhat difficult explanation to follow. I understand that out of the money, which must not exceed £10,000, some of the domestic expenditure of the Governor will be met.

Major Lloyd-George: The purely domestic expenditure comes out of the salary.

Mr. Ede: It all depends what one means in this context by "domestic." The Joint Under-Secretary asked us to assume that the total expended by the Governor would be £9,000. Then it was said that £1,250 of that was money that he himself ought to have spent. That is what I regard as domestic expenditure; it is the maintenance of the house as a residence, apart from the official part of the residence, and the entertainment of his own friends who happen to visit him and cannot be regarded as concerned with the official position that he occupies. It was said that £1,250 from the £9,000 could be attributed to that expenditure, and that there would then be £7,750 to come out of the £9,000.
I should have thought that that was a very unsatisfactory way to deal with the matter. Mixing up the private and official accounts of the Governor seems to be


something that we ought to avoid. I do not know what system of auditing applies. This matter does not come within the purview of the Auditor General; the estimate is made and agreed with the Treasury, and when the expenditure is afterwards incurred, I do not know how it is supposed the accounting is to be made.
Normally, one would have expected this to come before the Auditor General, and the Committee on Public Accounts would have comments on it if there had occurred anything to which the Auditor General took exception. However, this is expenditure out of the Consolidated Fund—I have taken the trouble to be properly informed on the matter—and does not come within the purview of the Auditor General.
I should like to know whether it is possible to deal with this more simply than the hon. Gentleman indicated and that the private expenditure of the Governor should not appear in the figures. Whatever is the charge against the £10,000 from the first should be money that could ultimately be defrayed out of that expenditure.
8.45 p.m.
It seems to be quite unnecessary to have this complication on the assumption that part of the money includes, let us say, the sum set aside as the rent of the premises that the Governor occupies in Hillsborough, the rooms that he occupies for his family life. I should have thought that that could be assessed. It is a definite sum, probably arbitrarily agreed, but certainly a sum that could be agreed. When one came to the total bill for the house, that part could be deducted from it, or he could make the payment into the Exchequer from the salary he receives.
I cannot see that there is any question of services, the employment of servants and other people. That ought to be the subject of allocation between the two accounts. If there is, I should have thought that, there again, it should be a sum that should be allocated at the beginning of the year before the expenditure is incurred. I hope that when we agree the figures they will be clear-cut and that there will be no subsequent disputes about them.
If there is anything that is undignified, whether in municipal or national affairs,

it is when one gets into a dispute about whether another couple of hundred pounds should have been paid from one side or the other. One gets into acrimony on points like that. I hope that we can be assured that an account will be made more simply than the hon. Gentleman indicated and that when we come to deal with the Clause in Committee we shall be able to get definite understandings, so that there will be no possible excuse for dispute thereafter.

Mr. Austen Albu: I came into the House for the business which is to follow this, and, therefore, the Committee will understand why I was extremely interested in the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens). I was not here during the debate, but I gathered from what he said that the sums to be granted under the Bill will be sums of which surpluses will not be returnable to the Treasury.
That may or may not be a good thing, and I should be out of order if I were to argue that. But I believe I am right in drawing attention to the fact that the Select Committee on Estimates, in a recent Report on grants-in-aid—and I take it that this is a grant-in-aid and not an ordinary Vote, because the sums are not returnable—pointed out that a Money Resolution should always draw attention to the fact that it is a grant-in-aid and that sums will not be returnable. A mistake was made by the Government last year, and again in this one. This is a grant-in-aid, and not a Vote in the ordinary sense. If that is the case, the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum should have made it clear.
I am surprised that a Government composed of Members supposed to be so interested in the control of expenditure should take so little trouble to make it clear exactly in what way the money is to be spent. This is a very serious matter to which Treasury attention has already been drawn. The Treasury has assured the Select Committee on Estimates that where grants are to be made in payment of sums dealt with in a Bill, the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum should so state, and it does not do so in this case.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The points which have been raised are matters which can be dealt with better during the Committee stage of the Bill than now, when we are


concerned rather with the limited amount of money which can be paid out under the Bill. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) thought that it was unfortunate that there should be a mixing of private and official expenditure. In this connection that cannot be helped.
The Governor and his family are necessarily using the accommodation and the services available. The alternative to mixing them would be that he should have one separate private household and another separate official household. Obviously, that would be undesirable and expensive. Somehow they must be disentangled, and I do not think that it will be very difficult to do so in practice.
Perhaps my answer to the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) will indicate how that will be done. He spoke, as did the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), of what is generally known as virement. We are not dealing with a Government Department. This is not expenditure incurred in the ordinary way by a Government Department, when sums are paid out from time to time as they are needed. Here there will necessarily be an assessment at the beginning of the year, and a payment to the Governor of what is estimated to be required by him.
At the end of the year the money will already have been paid out, so the situation will be different from that of an ordinary Government Department. Suppose that at the end of the year it is found that the Governor has in his hands £500 in excess of what he can account for as having been properly spent by him for the purpose of the allowance, then he will be deemed to have that £500, and in the following year the necessary adjustment will be made in the allowance to be paid to him. I do not think that there will be any difficulty in working out the matter on those lines.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as to the salary and expenses of the Governor of Northern Ireland, it is expedient to authorise the payment to the said Governor out of the Consolidated Fund of—

(a) a salary at the rate of four thousand pounds per annum; and
(b) an allowance in respect of expenses of an amount not exceeding ten thousand pounds per annum.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ESTIMATES (SELECT COMMITTEE)

Select Committee appointed to examine such of the Estimates presented to this House as may seem fit to the Committee, and to suggest the form in which the Estimates shall be presented for examination, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the policy implied in those Estimates may be effected therein.—[Sir C. Drewe.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Committee do consist of Thirty-six Members.—[Sir C. Drewe.]

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to move to leave out "Thirty-six" and to insert "Thirty-seven."
It will be known and appreciated by the House that I do not move the Amendment because I think that there is any special virtue in the number 36 or the number 37. I move the Amendment to provide for the election of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) to the Committee without disturbing the right to be appointed to that Committee of any other hon. Member who is, at the next stage of the Motion, to be so appointed.
For that reason, I should like to ask whether it would be proper to consider the Amendment with the next Amendment in the name of my hon. Friends and myself to insert the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood in the list of Members of the Committee. Then the true reason for my Amendment may be debated.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I think it is the view of Mr. Speaker that these two Amendments go together, and might well be discussed together.

Mr. Silverman: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The situation in which the House finds itself is, I think, unusual and, in some ways, unprecedented. The Select Committee on Estimates has been appointed year by year now since, I think, 1912; except during the war years when its place was taken by the Committee on


National Expenditure. The House has adopted various methods in appointing Members to Select Committees. A Select Committee does a job of work which, were it not done by that Committee, would fall to be done by the House itself. Therefore, as it were, it does a work of delegated administration; and the House has always deemed it important that a Select Committee, which is, in a way, carrying out work that otherwise would be carried out by the House as a whole, should, in a loose and general sense, be fairly representative of the House as a whole.
It has adopted various ways of doing that. There have been occasions when Select Committees have been appointed by a ballot of hon. Members, indeed by a secret ballot. There was, I think, one occasion when about 20 Members were nominated. Then two Members were selected and each entrusted with the task, at his own discretion, of striking out four names from the list of 20. The residue, what one might call the "rump" Select Committee, became the Committee of the House. I do not think that anyone would suggest that we should go back to any of those ways of nominating Select Committees, because in recent times Parliament has worked almost entirely by a system of party alignment and party representation.
The easiest way of securing that a Select Committee fairly represented the House generally, however loosely, was to leave it to the Whips, the usual channels, to agree between themselves as to what should be the representation, and who should be the persons selected, without however—and I attach some importance to this—at any time taking away from the House itself the right and the duty to agree or not to agree with those suggestions or to amend them if it chose.
Naturally, in normal circumstances the House would not seek to interfere, because, in normal circumstances, no question of unfairness would arise. But in the situation in which we now find ourselves there are factors which the House as a whole may think unfair to individuals and to the House itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lady-wood has been a member of the Estimates Committee for seven years. I think it would be conceded that he has been an

active, prominent and useful member. The last thing one would wish to do at this time of the evening, or, indeed, at any other time, would be to convert the House into a mutual admiration society, because it would be quite out of accord with its traditions. However, I think it fair to say, moderately, that my hon. Friend has been an extremely useful member of this Committee.
My hon. Friend was, at the end of last Session, and had been for a year, Deputy-Chairman of the full Committee, and he had during his seven years' membership been Chairman of a sub-committee for, I think, four years, or perhaps five. As Chairman of a sub-committee he had himself been responsible for four Reports, several of them of great importance, and some of them, especially the latest one, not without an element of controversy.
I think it would be conceded by everyone that but for recent happenings, which have nothing whatever to do with the Estimates Committee, my hon. Friend would have been nominated this year as he was nominated and appointed each of the previous seven years. I think that the House might, perhaps, agree with me when I say that while the House has a perfect and unquestioned right not to elect again even the most valuable member of a Select Committee if it does not wish to do so, it would still wish to have good reasons for not doing so.
What possible reason can here be suggested for excluding my hon. Friend from continuing the work on which he was so usefully occupied up to now? One knows what the reason is. It is that he and some others of us are not any longer represented—by their choice, not by ours—by the Opposition "usual channels." I am putting it in what, I hope, is a completely uncontroversial way.

Dr. H. Morgan: My hon. Friend is speaking the truth, at any rate.

Mr. Silverman: That, by itself, is not an unparalleled situation. For many years there have been small groups outside the two main parties, and I suppose, on one view of the matter, that had my hon. Friends and I chosen to be technical about it, one might numerically have compared our forces with those of the party which sits on the bench behind us, and, in that situation, I am not sure which of us would have had the prior right to


the Liberal room in the House. Of course, on that view of the matter, we should have been a recognised separate group, with, no doubt, a "usual channel" of our own, and the difficulty in which the House now finds itself might not have arisen.
It may be asked why that course was not followed. It seems, on the face of it, to be simple and not unfair. But it is at that point that the element of uniqueness enters into the problem, because my hon. Friends and I are still Labour Members of Parliament and members of the Labour Party. Indeed, I am afraid that we are bold enough to continue to think on the particular matter on which we were at difference from our colleagues—I except from what I am going to say now my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern)—that we might, in view of the state of opinion outside, say that we are not only loyal members of the Labour Party but the only loyal members. I do not expect my hon. Friends to accept that from me. A plebiscite among the rank and file, individual, members of the Labour Party up and down the country would settle that question once and for all.
Whether the House take the view that these six or seven members form a separate group or not, the answer about my hon. Friend's membership of the Estimates Committee ought to be the same. If my hon. Friend is regarded, for these representative purposes, as still a member of the Labour Party, there is no reason whatever for interfering with his membership of the Estimates Committee. If, on the other hand the House takes the alternative view that he is not, for these representative purposes, representative of the group of members above the Gangway but is one of a number of members who form a separate group by themselves, then, on the same general principle, that separate group would be entitled to representation on its own behalf on the Estimates Committee. I use the word "entitled" in a loose and general way. If we regard these six or seven members as a separate group, they are entitled to be represented on most of the main Committees.
There is no difficulty about doing it. I am not suggesting that anyone should be asked to give up his expected place in favour of my hon. Friend. My right

hon. and hon. Friends desire, because of what has happened, to have their quota made up only by members who are responsible to them. No one seeks to interfere with them, or to challenge them, or to alter the membership of the Estimates Committee. My Amendment seeks only to add my hon. Friend and, for that purpose I am now moving that the Committee consist of 37 members instead of 36.
Perhaps I may anticipate one objection, which might influence hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches more than those on the Opposition side. They will say, "That is all very well, but if we accept your proposal the balance of parties on the Estimates Committee will be altered, because the increased number will be obtained by having one member who, to all intents and purposes—or to all these intents and purposes—is a member of the official Opposition." I can understand the force of that objection, but it is not all beyond remedy.
If the Leader of the House thought that we were generally right in the view which I have been trying to express, but that to give effect to it might have that result he can easily put it right. The number can be 38. We would then have one more from each side, my hon. Friend would resume his activities—which I am sure that the House would like him to do—and the balance of the parties would be in no way affected.
It may be said, "But there is no notice of that and it cannot be done without notice." I too, have been doing a little homework, and I have discovered that the constitution of a Select Committee can be altered by notice at any time. If the Leader of the House thinks that it would be a reasonable solution to make the number 38, to add my hon. friend's name and—to balance him—to add an additional Member from the right hon. Gentleman's own side, that can be done, as he will probably agree, quite simply and readily. I feel sure that nobody on this side would have any objection to it at all.
I do not know that I can add anything to that statement of the case. One can elaborate it and go on hammering at it, but I do not think anything much would be gained by that. I have stated what I think the problem is. I hope that I have


stated it fairly—I have certainly tried to do so. I should like to conclude by saying this. This is not a party matter. It is a House of Commons matter. It is a question of the House of Commons electing its own Select Committees, and when one remembers that this Select Committee on Estimates is expressly precluded from dealing with any question which raises any matter of policy, the non-party aspect of what we are now considering is surely clearly reinforced.
In those circumstances, I would venture—and I hope that it is not an impertinence for me to do so—to express the hope that Members on both sides will be left free to speak and to vote on this according to their own judgment, their own conscience, and their own sense of the obligations which membership of this House imposes on them in such a matter. I do not know—I no longer have the right to know, or to ask—what decisions have been made by anybody on this, but I think it would be consonant with the dignity of the House, in dealing with this question, to allow every hon. and right hon. Member to cast his vote on whichever side he is directed by his own sense of what is right, proper and just.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to second the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has put the case so succinctly and logically that there is very little for me to add. We, the seven Members affected, seem to belong to a political no-man's-land. We have been described as rebels.
The fact that we have been so described, and may temporarily be isolated from our normal party associations, does not in any way alter the fact that we are Members of the House, that we have the support of our constituents, who wish us to remain here, and that, as long as we remain here, we are entitled, we believe, to representation on the Committees of the House. I am not a Member of one of those Committees. The only Committee to which I belong is the Scottish Grand Committee, which is regarded as a sort of penal servitude for hon. Members on both sides of the House.
But I suggest that whether one belongs to a temporary band of rebels or not

should not affect this issue. For example, the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) led a rebellion against the Conservative Party over the question of Suez, and I do not think that it has been held that because he happened to be a rebel on the Right he should be turned off the Estimates Committee. Indeed, I see his name on this Committee, so that the Right appears to recognise rebels even when they may not be recognised on the Left. At least, nobody will accuse the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East of being a rebel of the Left.
There is room in this House for the occasional rebel against party discipline. On some issues, men and women have to consult their conscience; they have to do what they think is right, and ultimately face their constituents and explain and abide by the decision of their constituents. I submit that there should be room on the Select Committee on Estimates for people who do not take the rigid party line and who, on occasion, are prepared to criticise fearlessly their own party, whether it is in government or opposition. This should decidedly be so in the case of the Select Committee on Estimates, whose duty should be to examine and probe, fearless of the consequences to Ministers and to Departmental chiefs.
I submit that there is room on the Select Committee on Estimates for somebody as tenacious, as independent-minded and, if I may say so, as tough on certain matters, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates). The Select Committee on Estimates has often been described as a committee of watchdogs of the public interest, but that is no reason why it should be held to be synonymous with Our Dumb Friends League. That is the position, putting it as clearly as I can.
In the House of Commons, which claims to be a democratic assembly, there is room on the Select Committee for people who can give useful service even if on certain occasions they do not happen to see eye to eye with their party. Therefore, I submit that it would be a good thing, from the point of view of public finance with which we are concerned in this Select Committee, if my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood, who for many years has played a very


important part in the deliberations of this Committee, and who has rendered useful service, independent of party associations, were added to the Committee, and pursued the work which he has done honourably and creditably up to the present.

9.20 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) put his case with moderation and a sincere feeling which, I think, impressed the House. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) put his case with his usual forcefulness and good humour. This is a House of Commons matter which ought so to be judged, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, he most of all, will so regard it when he replies.
The history of the appointment of Select Committee is lost in antiquity and difficult to discover. An excellent book was written recently by two of our eminent Clerks, "A People's Conscience," which describes how, in the nineteenth century, Select Committees were appointed by an ad hoc collection of Members who came together for the purposes of exploring a particular piece of administration with the desire to institute drastic reforms. There is no suggestion that at that time the appointment of such a committee or the membership of it was proposed by or opposed by the executive or that any opposition party leaders or Whips played any part in it.
Sir William Molesworth was an eminent Parliamentarian. He rose, as it were, from the ranks of the House. He collected Members around him. He formed a committee and was responsible for the amazing revelations on child labour, deportation, lunatic asylums and other questions which were followed by the great Acts of social reform towards the end of the last century.
It is only at the present day that we have articulated and canalised these activities in the hands of the Whips of either side. On page 588, Erskine May writes:
It was formerly the practice in both Houses to leave it to the Member on whose motion the committee had been appointed to move the names of the members to compose it, but in the Commons it is now customary for the members of Select Committees to be nominated on the motion of one of the government 'Whips' even where the committee was moved for by an unofficial Member.

But even so, up to the present time, and as far as this side of the House is concerned, I am thankful to say, still at the present time, the Whips are a convenient vehicle for the expression in the procedure of Parliament of what is agreeable and convenient to Members on all sides. No one can, therefore, have any possible complaint against the Motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir C. Drewe), deputy Chief Whip of the party on this side of the House. He has produced exactly the correct number of members in conformity with past practice.
There is a Liberal, carefully selected, no doubt, with the acquiescence of the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party; and, no doubt also if there were genuine independents in the House who could be isolated and identified, a selection would have been made of one or other of their number.
It is not the business of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton to rootle round in the Labour Party to try to discover what groups of Members are on one side and what groups are on another and to make his selection, or even to secure the acquiescence of those Members in a proposal that one or other of those groups should be included. No blame lies on this side of the House. It lies on the Opposition Front Bench. It lies, I regret to say, in the hands of the Chief Whip of the Socialist Party.
I admit that the right hon. Gentleman has been very sorely tried in past months. One reads in the Press of the troubles he has had, but they are not our business, nor the business of the House to discuss on the Floor this evening. It is not our business to comment on what general disciplines he chooses to exercise in order to bring some of his recalcitrant followers to heel, but this particular discipline it is the duty of this House to examine and to criticise.
Select Committees of Parliament are not instruments of the Executive and they are not instruments of the "shadow Executive" either. If a Coalition Government were in existence today, with these procedures in operation, might it not be quite impossible to set up a Committee of the best-informed Members to serve on it because of the prejudices of the Whips on one side or the other?
The instance I have given took place during the war and the very opposite


occurred. The Whips on both sides, in coalition as they then were, in conformity with the wishes of the House, set up a Committee on National Expenditure, which Committee proceeded to act in a true House of Commons constitutional sense and criticised the Coalition Executive very thoroughly, so much so that it gravely embarrassed certain members of the War Cabinet. I am not suggesting that we should have any such concept now; there is no need for it.
Suppose a Coalition Government did not exist but there were a coalition view between the Front Benches on a particular subject such as the divorce laws, capital punishment, conscription, or immigration. With the procedures in operation as envisaged by the Front Bench opposite, might it not be impossible to set up a Select Committee of the best-informed persons on those subjects to deal with the matter?
The knowledge of what is happening tonight and the attitude taken by some right hon. Members opposite must be making Sir William Molesworth turn in his grave. If this restrictive practice continues much longer he will leap out of his grave and proclaim that some of the great reforms of the last century carried through by Select Committees in his name cannot be repeated in this century.
What has happened to the Liberalism of the so-called heirs of the Liberal Party? Why does the right hon. Member not reach out with grace and light towards his supporters and see that they can properly perform their functions in these important constitutional committees of the House? The hon. Member for South Ayrshire was quite right. He heaped coals of fire upon the head of his right hon. Friend in saying that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester South-East (Captain Waterhouse), the leader of a group which opposed the Government on the question of Suez, was still the Chairman of the Select Committee on Estimates. Why cannot the party opposite settle its differences in a well-mannered way so far as constitutional provisions of this House are concerned?
I hold no brief at all for the hon. Members for Nelson and Colne and Ladywood (Mr. Yates). Indeed, I disagree with nearly everything the hon.

Member for Nelson and Colne says. As for the hon. Member for Ladywood, I think that the Report he produced on the Foreign Service was fantastically irrelevant and inaccurate. I am extremely glad that we are presented by the Foreign Office this evening with a White Paper that puts the matter right.
The simple proposition would have been, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said, to increase the numbers on the Committee by two, to have added the hon. Member for Ladywood and another hon. Member from this side; but that has not been done. The hon. Member himself has failed to propose that, and because he has failed to do it we are in a technical position tonight in which a vote for the hon. Member's Amendment cannot be effective; for it is clearly laid down in Erskine May that there has to be a Motion by prior notice of the number of Members before we can even discuss an additional name for the Committee.

Mr. S. Silverman: We are not in quite such difficulty as the noble Lord supposes. If the Amendment which I have moved were passed and only one Member added, so as to make the number 37 instead of 36, that is not conclusive for all time. The Lord Privy Seal could tomorrow morning give notice to extend the number to 38 and appoint an additional Member himself. I would myself have proposed 38 instead of 37, but I was afraid of being challenged by hon. and right hon. Members opposite as to who my colleague was on the opposite benches to make the number 38.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Whatever the hon. Member has failed or not failed to do, the technical position is that we cannot vote for his Amendment. As I have explained, the number has to be increased to admit one on our side in order to maintain the party balance. That has to be done by prior notice, and if it is not done we cannot discuss the name of any hon. Member on this side who can serve. Therefore, with much regret, I cannot support the hon. Member in the Division Lobby.
I sincerely trust that this will be the last time that the party opposite produces this sort of situation to the House of Commons. If it goes on doing this kind of thing, the House will lose the respect of many of our supporters throughout the


country who are deeply concerned about the maintenance of the constitutional position in this House and look to us to safeguard its rights and its principles.

9.33 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Perhaps it might help the House if I intervene now, and give a little guidance in what appears to be a very mixed battle. The first attack came from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) on his own Front Bench, and then, quite unexpectedly, my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) started attacking the Opposition Front Bench also. We on the Government Front Bench seem at the moment to be immune.

Mr. John Rankin: Just for the moment.

Mr. Crookshank: I should like to make the general position clear, as I see it. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said that this is not a party matter. Of course, the nomination of all Committees has to be decided by the House—it is always a House of Commons matter in that sense; but conventions have grown up over the years as to how to handle these matters most conveniently.
I must first advise that, as the noble Lord pointed out, the acceptance of what the hon. Member had in mind would not be made effective by passing the first Amendment. I must also make this point clear regarding the composition of this particular Committee. Its importance is well known to everybody; the good work that it has done has many times been praised in this House, and it is an old Committee. Until the time of its Report of 1947–48, it consisted of 28 members, but it then recommended to this House that the number should be raised to 36, so that it could have five sub-committees of seven Members—that is, 35 Members—plus the Chairman, and since that date it has worked on that basis.
The House ought to think more than once before changing the composition of such a Committee, which has specialised work to do, unless there is a recommendation from the Committee itself. The bulk of hon. Members who do not follow its

day-to-day work cannot be seized of the point as to whether the Committee should have five or four sub-committees and how many members it should have.
The last recommendation we, as a House, had from that Committee, was that the number should be 36. If we say here tonight, "Make it 37," or, as the second thoughts of the hon. Gentleman would make it, 38, we should have a figure which would not fit into the pattern on which that Committee has worked for the last five or six years.

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Mr. Crookshank: It is no use the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) muttering, because no amount of muttering will divide 37 by 7 and give a reasonable answer. With 36 Members, the Chairman excluded, we are left with 35, which can be divided five times by seven, but with 37 or 38 it cannot be done. Mathematics are mathematics—

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Mr. Crookshank: No, I have made my point, the hon. Gentleman understands it well, as I hope other hon. Members do.
Without a recommendation from the Committee as to the way in which it wants to carry on its business, arbitrarily to add one or two hon. Members—

Mr. Rankin: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give way? What he is suggesting is that the Committee should make a recommendation. He knows that the Committee is not functioning. How then can it make any recommendation?

Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman provides the House with glimpses of the obvious.
Of course the Committee is not sitting at the moment. We are proposing to set it up as a result of this Motion. But that does not alter my point, that the Committee which sat last Session, the Session before, and in previous Sessions did not suggest any alteration in the numbers. If there is to be an alteration, I would prefer the House to wait until the Select Committee itself suggests it Without that, by adding one or two more members, we should throw out the balance of its membership and the method along which, presumably, it works.
The argument with which the House is faced tonight is that put forward in essence by the noble Lord, and is what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne was saying: that too much authority has been given to the usual channels in nominating the members for these Committees. The Whips, said the noble Lord mixing his metaphors, were a convenient vehicle—[Laughter.] I hope it is in HANSARD, it is on my notes as having been said by him. But, of course, it is the only way in which these Committees can be set up.
Erskine May has pointed out that it has been the practice for many years, for this reason: that the proportions of members on a Committee are roughly those of party proportions in the House itself. The suggestion of 37 would throw the proportion out of balance and would, therefore, not be acceptable on those grounds.
I have not intimate knowledge of how nomination is done in either one party or the other, but obviously it is the Whips, the usual channels, on both sides who know best who are available to serve on Committees. Obviously it is no good the House deciding on a name and then finding that the hon. Member in question will not be here for some time, perhaps because of illness or travel, or for some other reason. This, therefore, is the only practical way in which Committees can be set up. I hope that I carry the House with me as far as that.
Then the question arises in this issue as to what happens in the case of the hon. Gentleman and his friends whose names are not submitted by the usual channels to be put on the Order Paper. That is their own civil war. I am not concerned as to what the reasons may be. I am concerned only when I see the list of names and the names put on the Order Paper. It is not a matter for me, and I do not think it is a matter for the House. If I carry the House with me in saying that the usual channels are the only machinery by which this can be done, then, obviously, those of us who are concerned with the business of the House—myself in particular—can act only upon that advice.
This Committee has 18 Conservative Members, 17 Labour Members and one Liberal Member. The Liberal Party does

not get nominations upon every single Committee, of course, and it knows that, and that has been recognised. It serves on certain Committees but not on others because on any proportional basis in this House it is not entitled to have a Member on every Committee, particularly on small Committees. That would apply in the case of every other small party. It has done so in my time in the House. The Independent Labour Party, with Mr. Maxton, had representatives on Committees, but not upon all Committees, for the party had only a small number of Members.
The same is true if there is a number of independent Members; that is to say, Members who are genuinely independent and do not think alike, which must be the definition of "independence" in this technical sense. Perhaps the House would like to know how that was done when there were 15 or 20 independent Members. According to the topic which was to be discussed in the Select Committee, one or other of them or several of them would be approached, and they would get a reasonable representation from time to time. Obviously, they could not all be on one Committee because that would be throwing far too much importance, weight and influence on those who were independent in their views. There we have the position of the small party being represented, and the independents being represented, when there are any.
We are then left with the question of what the hon. Gentleman and his little group are. They are not a party. Therefore, I cannot take cognizance of them any more than I suppose Mr. Speaker takes cognizance of them in the sense of their hoping to catch his eye in all major debates as in the case of party Members. If they formed themselves into a party, and had a chairman and a Whip and all the rest of it, then, of course, the whole question of their position would fall to be considered by everybody in the House; but they are not in that position, and they are not independent.
In fact, the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates)—it is a pity in a way that one has to refer to an hon. Member by name, because here we are not dealing with personalities at all—went out of his way, on 6th December, to say:
… I am certainly not an independent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 658.]


I hope the hon. Member will now realise the difficult position in which I am placed because he has said that he is not an independent. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said, "I am still a member of the Labour Party." I cannot force them on to those with whom I have contact as the long recognised—this is nothing new—nominating authority for Select Committees.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I put the point both ways—[Laughter.]—logically and fairly, I think. I say that one can either regard this group of seven hon. Members as independent or not regard it as independent. If one regards it as independent, then the right hon. Gentleman concedes that in spite of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates, or without the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates, we should be entitled to a place. I say also that if the true view—it is obvious that this is an anomalous situation about which people will have different views as to what is the correct view to be taken—is that we are not an independent group, but are still members of that group, then I say that the House ought not to permit my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood to be deprived, for a quite irrelevant reason, of his membership of this Committee.

Mr. Crookshank: Of course, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne can put the dilemma in that form.
All that concerns me is that, having asked for the 17 nominations for this Select Committee, and knowing something, as I suppose everybody does, of the trouble about the seven Members a little while back, I find it very difficult to do anything else, but accept the names from the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I advise the House to do the same, or it will get into very deep waters if hon. Members start trying to pick out particular hon. Members, whom they think to be more suitable to be on the Committee than those who have been recommended, presumably, after a good deal of consultation within the party concerned.
I am fortified in that view when, however much the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne claims the idea of independence, the hon. Member for Ladywood said:

I may be regarded as a rebel member, but I am certainly not an independent. I sit as a Socialist. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 658.]
The only part of this House where Socialists sit is on the benches opposite, and I cannot get away from that proposition. Therefore, while the hon. Member sits as a Socialist, and while in his view he is not an independent, it is not for me, to use the noble Lord's phrase, to go rummaging about to find the whys and wherefores about why his name was not submitted to be put on the Order Paper. His name was not submitted for that purpose, and I would advise the House to pass the Motion as it stands, without Amendment. I add that, as I said at the beginning, if this particular Amendment were adopted, it would throw the Committee out of balance and disturb its methods of working, and upset the party proportions which are inherent in the setting up of these Committees.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu: It is unfortunate that we have had a very long speech in opposition to my hon. Friend's Amendment from the Leader of the House, because, as has been said by almost every speaker in the debate, this is a House of Commons matter. It is also unfortunate that we should have had a speech from the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) which was completely deplorable. The Estimates Committee is generally considered to be a non-party body and I have never heard a more partisan, mischief-making speech in my life, nor a speech whose end was as weak-kneed as it is possible to imagine.
If ever there was an hon. Member of this House who attempted, in a high and lofty manner, to speak about the interests of this House and the duty of hon. and right hon. Members and then finished with a feeble little squeak, it was the noble Lord. I am sorry to have to speak in this tone, because, although the members of the Government Front Bench may not like it, this is a matter in which the House of Commons sets up a Committee for judging the Executive. The noble Lord himself has been a member of the Committee and knows how it operates. He knows that, in general, it does not operate on party lines, although, when we had to deal with Government trading matters,


there were times when the instincts of hon. Members opposite overcame them.
The noble Lord showed his partisanship when he attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) for the Report on the Foreign Office which was, of course, a Report of the full Committee of which the Chairman was his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse). The speech of the noble Lord was unfortunate in every possible respect. It has turned the tone of the debate from what it should have been into nothing more than a political party slanging match. I intend to try to bring the discussion back to the question of the Select Committee and its membership. I am not concerned with the political rights or wrongs or misdoings or otherwise of my hon. Friends who are no longer in receipt of the Labour Party Whip. I am very much concerned with the functions, the duties and the rights of the Select Committee on Estimates.
I hope that I will not be considered to be making a party point, because it may be made against either party when it happens to be in Government, but I suppose that the Government are not sorry that they have managed to go for so many weeks without the Select Committee. On the whole, the Executive does not like to have the affairs of its Departments examined even by a body which is completely impartial.

Mr. Crookshank: I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow me to intervene. There is no foundation at all for that remark. I have been most anxious to get the Select Committee set up. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will bear me out when I say that we have had several conversations. I have wanted to arrange for the discussion on several days but it was not convenient for him. There has been no question of delay.

Mr. S. Silverman: I want to endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It was agreed between us at an early stage that it would be wrong for the discussion to come on very late at night, and that we should have to wait until there was a time when it could come on fairly early. The first time when it could have come on early was last Thursday and the date was changed from then until

today for my convenience and not for the right hon. Gentleman's.

Mr. Albu: I willingly withdraw, because I do not want anything I have to say to be considered in any party political spirit.
I base my remarks on my experience as a member of the Select Committee during the last four years. There is little machinery in the House for the investigation of the actions of the Executive and very little machinery for the investigation of Government expenditure. We have only two finance committees. We have the Public Accounts Committee, which is a body of considerable age and very considerable reputation, which has the support of the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and everything that goes with it. This Committee does valuable work some time after the event.
The Select Committee on Estimates is rather slowly and carefully building up a reputation for its work. It is not a very old body. It has had a chequered career. It has, perhaps, performed its major work and created its major reputation under another name, as the Committee on National Expenditure, during the war, when, as the noble Lord said, it was not at all popular with the Government of the day. Since the war, the Committee has been re-established with a number of sub-committees and it has performed an increasingly useful function.
I do not think that any hon. Member wants to set up the sort of committee system which they have in some other Parliaments or in the United States, where committees investigate every detail of Government activity and try to assume some of the responsibilities of Ministers and heads of Departments. The Select Committee on Estimates will continue to hold its reputation and to do useful work only as long as it bears in mind the limitations under which it acts. It cannot perform the functions of close and detailed examination of a Department, or close examination of the efficiency of a large undertaking. That can be done only within the organisation itself, and with the full collaboration of those in charge.
But the Committee does very useful work in keeping Departments "on their toes" and in drawing attention to matters that need further investigation. I believe it very important that the Committee


should render its reports in a very careful manner; that in its reports it should not exaggerate or attempt to make the newspaper headlines. This is a matter for all members of the Committee. I would again remind the House that the reports of the Committee are generally unanimous and, in any case, differences among the members are almost always non-party.
It happens that the report to which the noble Lord referred was that on the Foreign Office, which was examined by a sub-committee of which the hon. Member for Ladywood was the Chairman. I had very strong disagreement with the hon. Member and the members of the Committee on the form of the report. Anybody who reads the minutes of the proceedings will see that I carried that disagreement into Amendments and into discussion. Therefore, I am not supporting everything that my hon. Friend has done.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will assist me by pointing out how the consideration which he is now advancing to the House is relevant to the question of whether there should be 36 or 37 members of the Select Committee.

Mr. Albu: I did not rise on the Motion to appoint the Committee, because I thought that on the whole you, Mr. Speaker, would allow a fairly wide discussion on this Amendment. So far, if I may say so, the discussion has been fairly wide, but I am bringing my remarks to a close.
Nevertheless, there are very few occasions on which we can discuss either the functions or the membership of the Select Committee on Estimates, and I am surprised that hon. Members who are so interested in expenditure should be so unwilling to discuss it. As this is so much a matter for the House of Commons, and one on which the Executive or the Front Bench on either side should not exercise too great an influence, I feel that it would be wrong not to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood to continue as a member of the Committee. On those grounds, and because I am sure that the Leader of the House could find perfectly good ways of dealing with the difficulties which he has expressed to the House, I intend to vote for the Amendment.

9.58 p.m.

Sir Gurney Braithwaite: I think that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave unanswerable reasons why this Amendment cannot be accepted. But I wish to be perfectly frank with the House, and to say that I remain unhappy about the situation which has developed.
Like my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), I shall be acquitted of any sympathy for the political views of hon. Members who find themselves in this situation. To me they are repugnant and fallacious. I rise to regret sincerely and deeply the disappearance from these Committees of the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), because, however much they may annoy hon. Members on this side of the House from time to time, they are Parliamentarians of a very high order, and in my view they have served the House well on these Committees.
The Leader of the House may complain of the difficult situation in which he finds himself, and I think we all accept that. Nor am I proposing to attack in any way the usual channels on either side of the House. But I wish to put before the House what I think is the lesson that we can draw from this debate.
I am one of those who have always regretted the disappearance from our midst of independent Members. I am not going into the reasons for their disappearance, but they added a great spice to our proceedings and were of great value. The point has been made in this debate that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Lady-wood and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and their hon. Friends are not so much independents as Socialists. Indeed, I think it would be fair to say that they are more Socialists than independents.
That puts us in a certain difficulty, but many of us remember the old I.L.P. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) was particularly vocal in those days, and here he is again in a similar position. As I say, we all remember the old I.L.P., and how it was possible to elect Mr. Maxton, Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. George Buchanan on to these Committees to participate in the work of the House. Therefore, I am not impressed


by the argument that the seven hon. Members opposite are independent Socialists. I should feel exactly the same if they were independent Mormons who had been refused the whip on the ground that they had failed to make the grade.
May I point out that though they are at the moment in a detached situation as Members of the House of Commons, they are seven in number, and, therefore, more heavily weighted in our midst than the official Liberal Party, which has a representative on this Committee. We are now told that they lack coherence, that the other night the hon. Member for Shettleston voted in one Lobby while his six colleagues voted in the other. Well, there are precedents to be found for just that situation, and so I think that they have had a raw deal.
I think that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had in mind—I thought I detected it running through his speech, and it was referred to elsewhere—that these seven hon. Members might find themselves back within the official Opposition fold before the General Election. That may well be.
If it is any comfort to them, I well recall an occasion when I did not like a Bill introduced by a Government of which I was a supporter, and when I voted against it 14 times in an all-night sitting. The next day I found myself in the Whips' Office and was threatened with just the fate which has overtaken them. It was getting near a General Election. I publicised the fact in my constituency, and it did me a mighty amount of good. That is a tip for the hon. Members.
If they are coming back to the official fold, then I would say to the Opposition Chief Whip, why exclude them now? If they are not, then surely they now possess an entity of their own, an individuality of their own, and should be accepted as such. Therefore, while my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has put up an unanswerable case which makes it impossible to support this Amendment in the Lobby, for the reasons he has given, I feel that it is an unhappy incident in the life of the House of Commons, that these seven hon. Members, whether they like it or not, now subsist in a separate pocket of opinion in our midst, and that we are losing two

excellent Members of our Select Committees. I hope it is an incident which will never be repeated.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: I concur with all that has been said by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Sir G. Braithwaite), and, indeed, by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) in praise of the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) and of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) for the excellent work which they have done on the Estimates Committee. All of us, I feel sure, feel great regret at the circumstances which have made it impossible for the names of the two hon. Members to be submitted, and, therefore, to appear in the Motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman on one point? I am not a member of the Estimates Committee, and never have been.

Mr. Robens: I should have said that it was on the Private Bill Procedure Committee. Nevertheless, I entirely agree with what was said about both these hon. Members, so that it is in no spirit of vindictiveness and no indication that their services were not very well received, that I am bound to support what the Leader of the House has said.
For good or ill, as has been explained by the Leader of the House and by the noble Lord, these names are submitted on a purely party political basis. It is a House of Commons matter, but it has now been laid down as a custom for the names to be submitted on a party basis, and on a basis proportional to the Members in the House. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne suggested that there was an easy way out by raising the number to 37. That immediately brought up the point that the Government would not then have a majority on the Committee.
Therefore, the hon. Member suggested that it would be open to the Leader of the House to recommend 38. Even that would not meet the case, because if there were 38 members of the Committee, assuming that the number was divisible according to the number of Committees, what would be the position? The Patronage Secretary would approach the Opposition Chief Whip and ask him for


18 names. He would be taking 19 names, because there would be one Liberal, to make 38. The Chief Whip would be only entitled to submit names of members of the Parliamentary Labour Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because that is his only function. He is not here to represent independent Members of Parliament.

Mr. S. Silverman: I quite understand my right hon. Friend. He says that the Labour Chief Whip was bound to make the suggested change because my hon. Friend was no longer a member of his party. Is that the point?

Mr. Robens: Yes.

Mr. Silverman: Then why does my right hon. Friend say that my hon. Friend, not being a member of that bloc but of another bloc, is not entitled in that other capacity to go on that Committee?

Mr. Robens: rose—

Miss Irene Ward: Put up a better case.

Mr. Robens: The hon. Lady is a little tired. Her brain is not working as actively as normally. If she is so anxious that independent Members should be put upon the Committee, why does she not persuade the Patronage Secretary to put the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne on the Committee?

Miss Ward: I am on the Committee, and have been for several years. The right hon. Gentleman has not read his brief.

Mr. Robens: If the hon. Lady will be patient I will deal with one point at a time.
I come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, and I repeat that my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip can only submit the names of members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, because he has no jurisdiction over anyone else. Therefore, he is not responsible now for the hon. Member for Ladywood or for the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.

Mr. Silverman: I understood that point the first time. What I am asking, if that is so, is why the right hon. Gentleman is advising the House to reject my Amendment? What is it to do with him?

Mr. Robens: I am advising the House to accept the advice of the Leader of the House, very largely because of the arguments which have been used, and because of the additional argument that, if there is an increase in the number of members of the Estimates Committee, then, on the present method of appointing hon. Members to that Committee, the Parliamentary Labour Party will still be asked to submit names for its proportion of the members. It still will not bring in the independent Members.
There is no more reason why the Parliamentary Labour Party should nominate independent Members than that the party opposite should. The fact is that if the number of members were raised to 38 the Opposition Chief Whip would be asked to supply 18 names and would produce them from members of the Parliamentary Labour Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because he is responsible only for members of the Parliamentary Labour Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It may well be a shameful thing to some people—

Mr. S. Silverman: I follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument completely up to the point at which I last intervened. I understand that he will always claim the full representation for the Parliamentary Labour Party and will regard himself as confined to its official members. All that is perfectly clear and does not need labouring. What I cannot understand is why, if the House decided to increase the number to 38 in order to make provision for those hon. Members for whom he declines responsibility, he should want to come in and snaffle the lot.

Mr. Robens: The hon. Member must come back to the fact that the Committee is set up on a basis purely proportional between the parties.

Mr. Silverman: Not at all.

Mr. Robens: It is no use the hon. Member saying, "Not at all." I have not had his long experience in the House, but I have listened carefully to what has been said tonight. I listened to the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South, read from Erskine May. The Leader of the House reinforced that view, and I think it is clear to all the House that, whether or not it is difficult for some people, or whether or not we like it, the fact remains


that the number of members of the Estimates Committee is (a) decided by the House, and (b) those hon. Members nominated to it are nominated in strict proportion to party strength; and increasing the number would not necessarily bring in the independent members.
I do not want to go into the reasons why there are independent Socialist Members. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne himself, almost as a side issue, raised the question and talked of plebiscites. The independent Socialist Members are not independent because of a particular vote they gave, but because they did not act in accordance with the constitution of the Parliamentary Labour Party. It seems to me, therefore, that if one puts oneself, by one's own actions—

Mr. J. McGovern: I did, and I was expelled.

Mr. Robens: The point, surely, is that if hon. Members put themselves out of their Parliamentary association, difficulties such as these arise from it.

Mr. Silverman: That is nonsense.

Mr. Robens: It may be nonsense, but it is the fact—

Miss Ward: Who is tired now?

Mr. Robens: —that if members of a political party put themselves in this position these are some of the problems, some of the difficulties, some of the burdens that they have to face. It is very regrettable; nevertheless, we have to face it. It seems to me that we should support the Motion.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I hope that the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) will excuse me if I do not follow his arguments in detail. For many years I have had a secret desire to be able to listen to a Socialist Party meeting. I think that everybody will agree that in the last 10 minutes we have probably been given a fairly good idea of what goes on.
In this Amendment there are really only two points which are of great value. Every one of us can realise the importance of independent Members. Every one of us can realise that this is a House of Commons matter. We can all realise all the difficulties, and talk about them with

great learning and at great length if necessary.
On this occasion, however, we are faced with the fact that this Estimates Committee has been built up with very great care to work on the basis of five subcommittees and a Chairman. If another one or two more members are introduced, the basis of its work is entirely upset. That means that it is not right to add a member. If, on the other hand, one took another point of view and, in place of one member, substituted the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates), there might be a case.
The other point of view, so far as I understand it, is this. It is an excellent thing to have independent groups in this House, but they must be organised; they must have a whip and a leader, and they must all vote on the same side, more or less. On the occasion of the origin of this group, one voted one way and six voted the other way; the best of the lot was the hon. Member who voted by himself.
One cannot possibly have a group of this sort which splinters off for a little while, and whose members are, for all I know, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), later received back into the fold. It is ridiculous to set up a group of this sort, without any organisation, and regard it as having the right to overrule the whole of the working of the House, as would happen if this Amendment were accepted. If, on the other hand, we had an independent group, nothing would be more important than that they should have representation on this sort of Committee.
For that reason, I hope that the House will take the view that this proposition is quite unworkable, that there is no real, solid, independent group, but rather a group of persons who will dissent and will then come back when it suits either their Chief Whip or their leader, in which case, if this Amendment were accepted, we should be in the position of having added one additional Socialist Member, which would be utterly unfair.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: On many issues that come before the House—indeed, I think on the majority—I find myself in disagreement


with the hon. Members for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and for Lady-wood (Mr. Yates), but that is no reason for my opposing this Amendment. I regard it as all the more important that I should try to consider this Amendment as fairly and as impartially as I can.
I feel that strong arguments have been put forward for the Amendment, and I am all the more persuaded to accept the Amendment after hearing the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens). I really was alarmed at some of his remarks. His speech threw light on what I regard as a very dangerous trend in our Parliamentary life. I have tried to consider whether there is an answer to the arguments which have been put Forward by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. It may be that, in practice, a distinction could be made between a group which has only recently been compelled to secede from a main party, and a minority party or group of independents who have gone through the days—and it may be very gruelling days—of a General Election, and who, perhaps, feel that they are grossly under-represented in the House.
To put it in another way, there may be a distinction, in practice, between a group which is temporarily separated from the main body and a group which has been independent for many years and has every intention of remaining so. There may be something in that distinction, but I am not sure that it is appropriate and relevant on such an occasion as this when we are considering the appointment of a Select Committee on Estimates.
As hon. Members have said, this is not a party matter. It is a constitutional problem, and I doubt whether, in considering this constitutional issue, we can take into account the temporary nature, or otherwise, of this group of independent Members. We have to accept the situation as it exists. I appreciate the difficulties of the Leader of the House. It may well be true that this situation has arisen from a civil war, as he called it, but this civil war has been brought to the notice of the House. We cannot shirk it. We have to face it tonight.
I submit that there are five considerations which should weigh with hon. Members in deciding whether to support the Amendment. First, it is clearly the duty

and privilege of the House to appoint this Committee. I do not think anyone disagrees with that. It is the duty of the House, in appointing the Committee, to try to make it as far as possible representative of the whole House, and it would be wrong to delegate that responsibility to the Whips. I am not suggesting that the Whips do not perform a valuable function in the House, but there is at least a possibility that we may travel too far along the road towards government by Whips.
Secondly, it is clearly our duty to pay due attention to minorities and the interests of minorities, and there is at least a prima facie case that this group of independents, who have expressed a desire to be represented on the Estimates Committee, should be so represented.
Thirdly, we have a precedent for independent Members serving on the Select Committee on Estimates. I think the last hon. Member to serve as an independent was Mr. Kenneth Lindsay. Had it not been for the disappearance of independent Members in 1950, it may well be that we should have had more up-to-date precedents for independents serving on the Select Committee on Estimates.
Fourthly, there is no magic in numbers. The number was formerly 28 and was increased to 36. There is some force in the arguments advanced by the Leader of the House. I appreciate his difficulties but do not think they outweigh the serious matters of principle which have been raised tonight. I do not think it would be an insuperable difficulty to have 37 or 38 members of the Committee. It is not absolutely necessary that the sub-committees should be composed of five members each. I believe the Select Committee could work satisfactorily even if the number were not even.
Lastly, I suggest that there is some distinction to be made between Committees dealing with Bills and the Select Committee on Estimates. It is reasonable that the Government should have a majority on a Committee dealing with Bills, particularly where they are controversial. Even though the majority may be of only one, it is reasonable that the Government should require that majority in order that business may be carried through and that Bills may pass through Committee, or that there may be a reasonable hope of Bills passing through Committee. But


the Select Committee on Estimates is rather different.
I was impressed during the three years in which I served on the Select Committee on Estimates by the fact that if one were to listen in one would very often find it difficult to tell to what party a member of the Committee belonged. It is the purpose of the Select Committee on Estimates to examine Government expenditure, to examine the estimates and to do so as fairly and impartially as possible. I think it is to the credit of the Select Committee on Estimates that party considerations are, for the time being at any rate, very largely forgotten.
Therefore, the only possible argument against this Amendment—apart from the technical ones put forward by the Leader of the House—would be that the hon. Member for Ladywood is not a fit and proper person to serve, and no one has suggested that. The very fact that he has ceased to receive the whip may indicate that he has an independence of mind which may make him very useful and valuable on the Select Committee on Estimates.
Disraeli is reported once to have made the remark:
Damn your principles, stick to your party.
I suggest that tonight we might reverse that advice, for this is not an occasion when party loyalties should over-ride all other considerations. It is an occasion when it is the duty of the House to maintain the traditional respect for minorities and democratic principles. It is for that reason, which I think overrides all other arguments, that I propose to support the Amendment.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: The House will agree that this Amendment has been moved and seconded in a reasonable manner. The House has always taken a special interest where the rights of back benchers are concerned. In the 10 years I have been in this House I have found that the House is always hyper-sensitive about the rights and privileges of back benchers as against either the Executive or the Front Bench of the Opposition, that the dignity and prestige of the House itself rests upon the recognition of the fact that the party machine is not everything in this House; and if we have moved into the

age when the party caucus completely controls what happens in this House, the House itself has less to give than it had previously.
I believe the public of these islands is as anxious as we are that the rights and privileges of ordinary Members of the House shall be acknowledged. There is not one hon. Member of this House who was not elected on the basis of loyalty to a party. Every right hon. and hon. Member, on both sides, obtained admission to this House by giving his public allegiance to the principles of one party or the other.
But, when that is said and done, within the bounds of loyalty which we all owe to those who voted for us on the basis that we would support the party to which we belong, the dignity of this House rests upon the fact that hon. Members have a perfect right, on issues of conscience, to do what my hon. Friends did. It would be a pity if the operation of the party machine should make it appear as though they were being punished for a vote they cast.
I believe all of us acknowledge that it is the mechanics of this question which have led to the real difficulty. My right hon. Friend the Chief Whip for the Opposition was in an almost impossible position. From his point of view he regarded it as impossible to nominate my hon. Friend to continue to serve on the Committee. I suggest to the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Whip for the Government would do the same if an hon. Member had left the party to which he belongs.
But I believe that this is a House of Commons matter, and that we should get over the mechanical difficulty if the Leaders on both sides allowed freedom to their supporters on this question. Because, we need not deceive ourselves, this question of 37 members is not difficult to resolve. If the House decided tonight that another was to be added to the Estimates Committee, before the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House left tonight he would have tabled the necessary notice to give the Government its majority on the Estimates Committee. So, if the principle is to be acknowledged by this House that back benchers must have rights, regardless of the might of the machine, this is the opportunity for the House to let its will be known.
There have been many party speeches made on this issue. I suppose we cannot blame hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite for trying to make he most of this occasion and to score as many party points as they can. It is inevitable that in this debating Chamber people do so, and that we seize every opportunity that we can. But, when our points are scored, the dignity and the prestige of the House is something even higher than the interests of our respective parties, and I believe that we shall be making a mistake if we tell the country that anybody who quarrels with this Front Bench or that Front Bench has lost his right to serve on important Committees of this House like the Estimates Committee.
Somehow, though my right hon. Friend feels inhibited by his responsibilities to this party to nominate those who no longer have the whip of this party, the House itself ought to give opportunity to the two Front Benches to have this matter put right by having the courage to vote tonight for the addition of another member to the Estimates Committee.

Mr. Spencer Summers: I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) will not think me offensive if I say that a great deal of what he said, and most of what speakers immediately preceding him said, is irrelevant to the point which we are debating. The fact is that there are a certain number of hon. Members who say that they are not independent. They are also not official members of the Labour Party. It is from that position of not being either one of those two things that our present difficulty arises.
If they were genuinely independent, they would, on past precedents, be eligible for consideration to be on this Committee; if they were genuinely members of Her Majesty's Opposition, they would be eligible for their names to be nominated in the ordinary way. They are neither of those things and there is no half-way house. We know what they are not. It appears to be that they are thoroughly red herrings—

Mr. Leslie Hale: This is an important issue. They a re members of the official Labour Party but they are not in receipt of the official Parliamentary Labour Party's whip, which is a different matter. Supposing that the whip is withdrawn from 50, 60 or 70 members

en bloc, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that automatically those 50, 60 or 70 cease to have any Parliamentary existence in the sense that they can take part in no Committee of this House, and that neither bench would support any of their claims, and that that would be right?

Mr. Summers: I am not laying down any principles.
What I am saying is that the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) says that he is not independent. He is the judge of whether he is independent or not, and I accept what he says. Also, when the leaders of the Opposition say "They are not under our whip," we must accept the fact that those Members are not members of the Labour Party in this House.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and it is because they are neither of the two types of Member that I have described that the difficulty arises. Much as I regret the fact that the hon. Member for Ladywood, with whom I have worked for some years, does not look like continuing to be a member of the Select Committee on Estimates for some time, I find myself completely satisfied with the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend.
There is a point which has not yet been put. One of the reasons why I dissent from the case advanced for the Amendment, apart from the general grounds to which I have just referred and the arguments of my right hon. Friend. is that the solution advanced to overcome the difficulty is to make the Committee larger. I find myself totally opposed to the idea of making it larger. I think it is too large already.
With five sub-committees, we find that it is almost more than is practicable for hon. Members to study in detail the evidence and papers of the four subcommittees of which they are not members so that they may do justice to their responsibilities in underwriting the reports brought forward by the other subcommittees. The general conclusions submitted to the House by the Select Committee on Estimates would probably carry greater weight if they were originally prepared by only four subcommittees and screened through the whole Committee instead of our having the present procedure. Not only would it enable more attention to be paid to the reports of the sub-committees, but it


would permit of a better attendance, in view of the absentees which necessarily arise with only three a side and a chairman.
I wanted the opportunity of stating that there is at least one member of the Select Committee who hopes that the time will come when a contrary recommendation to that of enlarging the Committee will be put forward; namely, that it should be a little smaller and have fewer subcommittees, and so carry greater conviction when recommendations are brought before the House.
On the immediate issue, the dilemma is one which cannot be solved in the way suggested, and I find myself in complete agreement with the arguments of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Michael Foot: It has been said by several hon. Members, without anybody dissenting, that this is a House of Commons matter. Hon. Members are to be congratulated upon the large number who are attending to listen to the debate. I am sure that no hon. Member on either side would suggest that any whips should be put on on a matter of this kind, and, therefore, it is all the more credit to hon. Members opposite—they are in larger numbers than those assembled on this side of the House—that they should have waited to cast their votes freely at the end of the debate. It would be a complete novelty if anyone were to suggest that the whips should be applied on either side on a subject which is a House of Commons matter.
I cannot think that there has been any effective reply to the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Two hon. Members and one noble Lord opposite deeply regretted what was happening, but on the grounds that the Amendment was not phrased in a way which would achieve the result which they would like they managed to wriggle out of the possibility of voting on the subject. It would have been better if they had not made their speeches if that was how they were going to regard the vote.
If it is a major issue concerning affairs of the House of Commons, as they claimed—the noble Lord certainly made that claim—and if it is a matter affecting the Members and the conduct of the House—nobody put that point more

strongly than the noble Lord—surely those are not matters to be weighed in the balance against whether one or two extra Members should be on the Committee. Therefore, if we accept the argument of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), and the argument put by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Sir G. Braithwaite), the logic is that we should vote for the Amendment; and even if the two hon. Members are not themselves going to vote for it, they may at least take credit for the fact that they have persuaded others to adopt a course which they themselves are not likely to adopt.
The argument of the Leader of the House, so it appears to me, seems to be the weakest of all because the right hon. Gentleman claims that the number itself is sacrosanct; although that argument has since been exploded because we have been told that the number ought to be smaller in any case although it still must be divisible by something or other. I do not think that the Leader of the House could have advanced his argument with any great assurance, because he knows that there can be a committee with one extra member on it. These allegedly complicated arithmetical problems can be worked out.
But then the Leader of the House went on to produce the most damaging of arguments against his own case by recalling the days of the Independent Labour Party. He mentioned Mr. Jimmy Maxton; but how did Jimmy Maxton get on to these Committees? How about Kenneth Lindsay? Was it done by the then Leader of the House; was it with the assistance of the Opposition whips? What was the procedure?

Mr. McGovern: May I explain that in the days of the I.L.P. it was studied policy not to be represented on these Committees; not to dissipate our energies there, but to reserve them for the House, and we were not members of these Committees at all.

Mr. Foot: That is interesting, and I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for putting our history right. But he must forgive me because I had accepted at its face value what I was told on this point by the Leader of the House.
However, what about Kenneth Lindsay; what about W. J. Brown, who was certainly a member of several of these Com-


mittees? They were elected, presumably, by the Government Chief Whip because he wanted to see that the whole of the House of Commons was properly represented; and I say that the Leader of the House should not say that he cannot operate precisely the same system which operated in earlier days.

Mr. Summers: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the illustrations which he now gives are all of hon. Members who were independent Members, whereas the hon. Gentleman who is the subject of this debate himself admits he is not an independent?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Foot: As I understand it, there is a new kind of political animal in the House today, and the Leader of the House says that the House is incapable of dealing with it. But if the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) reads his political history in greater detail, he will discover that there have been all types of varieties of hon. Members; those who were previously members of the Labour Party, or of the Conservative Party, and others who were more or less independent, and the House has always in the past been able to accommodate itself to the situation.
Now, however, it is argued that it is impossible for the House to accommodate itself to this new position; while others argue that it can. Somebody has said that the House of Commons can be likened to the trunk of an elephant; it can fell an oak or pick up a pin. I believe that the House can devise new methods for dealing with this new problem.
The argument with which I was dealing was that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, said that it is impossible for the Opposition whips to submit any other names than those of hon. Members for whom they are responsible; but it was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne in his interruption that surely my right hon. Friend should have been arguing against the proposition of the Leader of the House, and asking him why he did not take the responsibility on himself as other Leaders of the House have done in the past, of seeing that independent Members are represented on this Committee.

Mr. Summers: They are not independent.

Mr. Foot: We have the authority of the Chief Whip and the spokesman for our Front Bench that they are not speaking for them. I should have thought that a good definition of an independent Member of this House is a Member who has no "usual channels" through which he can operate. I cannot imagine any other definition.
Mention of their independence is not a matter concerned with their political line or conduct. It is not whether they are red or pink Socialists or blue or semi-blue Tories that matters. It has nothing to do with the colour of their politics; it has to do with their relation to the official party machines in this House, and my hon. Friend assures me, and indeed it has been confirmed not only by his conduct but by the Opposition Front Bench, that he has no relations with the Front Bench.

Mr. A. C. M. Spearman: For how long?

Mr. Foot: I cannot say for how long.
The Committee may be set up soon, and the question is whether six or seven Members who are not represented through the usual channels should be represented on the Committee.

Mr. Spearman: The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly referred to Mr. Kenneth Lindsay and Mr. W. J. Brown. Both those gentlemen, when Members of this House, frequently voted sometimes in the Government Lobby and sometimes in the Opposition Lobby. Is not that conduct a fair working interpretation of an independent Member?

Mr. Foot: One of the reasons why this problem exists is that my hon. Friends voted in a different Lobby from that in which their colleagues in the Labour Party voted. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are asking that they should be deprived of any representation on these Committees. I am prepared to concede that we cannot lay down absolute and final laws as to how we should elect the Committees. It is difficult to lay down an exact procedure which should be followed in all cases. The matter must be dealt with with some degree of tolerance.
It is essential, unfortunately, to have whips in this House. It is for the convenience of the House. Indeed, the House


could not operate without some form of whip machinery, but the same point of principle applies to this matter as applies to the general operation of the whips. The whips are essential for the conduct of party democracy, but they are only tolerable when their power is exercised with some degree of magnanimity, and here no magnanimity has been shown from the Front Opposition Bench or from the Government Front Bench.
If the two Front Benches try to operate the rules of the House, showing no degree of latitude and no degree of magnanimity, and making no attempt to try to make old and good traditions apply to new circumstances in a tolerable fashion, then they will be undermining the strength and the prestige of the House. It is for that reason that I hope that there will be a majority for the Amendment. I hope that no hon. Gentleman will demean himself so much on a matter which concerns the House of Commons itself, and which is admitted to be a House of Commons matter, as to go into the Lobby and vote purely because of the considerations of the party whip.

Miss Irene Ward: I very much deplore the present situation. I happen to be a member of the subcommittee of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) was the chairman. I have served on it for some years now, and I have much appreciated his chairmanship. I have noted with satisfaction his competence his conscientiousness and his efficiency, and I very much regret that this most unfortunate situation has arisen.
But almost every hon. Member has referred to the fact that this is a Committee set up by the House of Commons, and that the procedure runs through the usual channels. No one disagrees with that, but what I think is deplorable is that her Majesty's Opposition is using the official channels to take action against a section of its own party with which it is in disagreement. It is of the greatest importance that when we are setting up a House of Commons Committee we should remember that we are serving the House of Commons, and we should not seek to run private inter-party vendettas when we are trying to do our duty by the House. No hon. or right hon. Member opposite has explained to

the House that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood had already been invited to take up his position again as a member of the Estimates Committee, but, as soon as he recorded his vote, and a vote of conscience, the invitation of his own party whip was withdrawn, and that is what, in my estimation, constitutes a grave offence against the dignity and rights of the House.
I listened with very great interest to what the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) had to say on this matter, and am bound to say that, as he represents the constituency next to mine, I was disappointed—

Mr. Robens: I used to represent the hon. Lady's.

Miss Ward: Yes, they got rid of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robens: That was not quite the fact. I gave it to the hon. Lady at the redistribution.

Miss Ward: I am delighted. I had no idea that the right hon. Gentleman had such influence.
I know he has a great deal of charm. We all know that, but, unfortunately, on this occasion, because he does not come from my part of the world, he failed to call a spade a spade, and instead of trying to explain, as he was entitled to—he had not even read his brief—the position of Her Majesty's Opposition, he tried to hide behind my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
By the time the right hon. Gentleman sat down I surmised that he was trying to ride two horses at once, which is quite impossible. If he wanted to make a forthright speech he should have said that the Opposition had decided that they were going to discipline the seven hon. Gentlemen who voted against their party dictates, that in their opinion they had a perfect right to do so, and that was their case. But the right hon. Gentleman had not even got the guts to say that, and I am very disappointed that he should have been so lacking in courage. Of course, I know it is a very unfortunate position for the Opposition—and I am enjoying it right up to the hilt.
I am fully seized of the need to have independent people sitting on a Committee which has the power, at any rate, to seek to complain to the Executive. I


am very keen on the machinery of government, and I enjoy the participation of independent Members. Therefore, I feel that it is very sad indeed that a great Opposition—great in a numerical sense, though small in this sense—should seek to pursue a vendetta against a few people, and should use a House of Commons Committee for the purpose of pursuing that vendetta.
Though the Amendment is very interesting, I cannot see that, even if we carried it, the hon. Member for Ladywood would get on to the Committee, because, as far as I can make out, it would still be within the competence of the Opposition Chief Whip to invite No. 37 to sit on the Estimates Committee. It is quite true that naturally a Conservative Member would be appointed, but that would not ensure that the hon. Member for Ladywood would be on it.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she has, perhaps, overlooked the fact that there are two Amendments, which, by permission of the Chair, are being discussed together. The first is to change "thirty-six to "thirty-seven," and the second is to add the name of my hon. Friend.

Miss Ward: I apologise, but I had not heard the announcement from the Chair that we were discussing the two Amendments together. We have been discussing the question of adding one name and making the number 37. If the hon. Member for Ladywood were going to rejoin the Estimates Committee, then that would be a very important matter.
I do not wish to say any more. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I know that hon. Members opposite do not like it. but, once again, I repeat what I said before, that I feel very conscious of this vendetta being pursued in the setting up of a House of Commons Committee, and I deplore the fact that the Opposition should have exercised a vendetta without considering, first of all, its duty to the House of Commons.

Mr. Reader Harris: I think it is unfortunate that membership of these Committees has, apparently, to depend primarily upon party membership. Surely, the primary consideration when electing a person on to one of these Committees should be his

suitability, and, if he has been on a Committee before, his record of service on it. I should have thought it irrelevant whether or not an hon. Member was a member of a particular political party. I cannot reconcile myself with the view that has been expressed from both Front Benches that nominations for these Committees must come through the usual channels.
I was interested in the point raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). I had it in mind to make the same point. He asked what would have happened if 17 Members of the Labour Party had been expelled from the Parliamentary Labour Party, or 27 for that matter.

Mr. Hale: I was meticulously careful not to mention which party. I was only thinking of the "suicide club" which was in danger of having the whip withdrawn a few months ago.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Harris: Supposing that 27 Members had been expelled from the Parliamentary Labour Party, that would have entitled them to one representative on this Committee, assuming that we make the appointments on a party basis. Does that mean that the Leader of the House would have asked the official Labour Party for only 16 names instead of 17?
Is the only criterion constitution as a party? I should hope that a man's suitability for the job would be the first consideration, but I am told that nominations for these Committees should come from the leadership of the parties. Are we bound indefinitely to this particular tradition? What rule binds us to it indefinitely? I should have thought that the strength of the House of Commons was its flexibility, but here we have an individual case where an hon. Member has given excellent service—he has been deputy-Chairman of the Committee and Chairman of a sub-committee—but, in the eyes of the outside world, he is to be expelled because he voted against German rearmament.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I inform the hon. Member that in most cases the whip was withdrawn for voting against that, but that one hon. Member had the whip withdrawn for voting for it?

Mr. Harris: I am very concerned about the effect of what we are doing tonight upon the country at large. Every one of us, I think, has had to put up from time to time with a good deal of joking criticism from friends and constituents because we are continually having to go into the Lobby either against our will, or because we are whipped into it.

Mr. George Wigg: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Harris: I have seen hon. Members of the Labour Party go into the Lobby with tears running down their cheeks. It is no use the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) saying "Speak for yourself" when talking about going into the Lobby against one's will. Members of the Labour Party went into the Lobby with tears running down their cheeks when they had to vote for their own Government's Motion in relation to Mr. Seretse Khama. Mr. Seretse Khama was sitting at the back of the Chamber, and I saw Labour Members go to apologise to him because, on the whips' orders, they had had to vote against him.
The country sometimes thinks that we are an odd lot. They think that we are very weak. We have to explain to those who joke about these things just why we have two parties, and why we have to obey the party whips—because we do not want chaos in Parliament and so on. I have an enormous respect for the party whips. I have no doubt that we could not get along without them, and we need the usual channels, but surely there should be some limit to the power of the whips.
This has been called a House of Commons matter. I prefer to regard it as a back benchers' matter. It is not often that we have an opportunity to say what we think of those on the Front Benches, but in this matter, I think, the Front Benchers are operating what I might call a restrictive practice, and it should be referred to the Monopolies Commission.
This is a very serious matter. I do not want to see the hon. Member for Lady-wood (Mr. Yates) or the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) expelled from these Committees because of their party political views. Those views stink in my nostrils, but those hon. Members are good House of Commons men, and surely what we need on the Committees are

good House of Commons men, men with good experience, and men willing, apparently, to give their time to the work. I should hate to be on the Committees—I have to earn my living—but if hon. Members have given good service in the past that should be the criterion.
The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) has referred tonight to the question of the party whips. I do not know what is happening in his party, but I understand that in our party the whips are on. I am very sorry that they are on. I should have thought that this was a back benchers' matter, on which we could all vote exactly as we feel is right and proper, because it is of constitutional importance to the working of Parliament.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I had not intended to intervene, but the last observation of the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) was one which could not be permitted to pass without comment. The Leader of the House got up with the reticence and courtesy that he usually displays, and spoke to the House in a temporising fashion and indicated that, with reluctance, he had come to the conclusion that he would have to tender certain advice, and sat down. Speaking from great experience, having spent some years in the House, he felt it his reluctant duty to indicate an opinion to his hon. Friends.
Now we are told that they are to have their bottoms smacked if they do not vote in accordance with the whip. [Interruption.] I am referring to whips. The origin of the term is well known, and I should have thought that the metaphor that I used was precisely that which was conjured up in connection with that process.
The hon. Member for Heston and Isle-worth gave a fanciful picture, which I have never seen, of Labour Members weeping as they advanced slowly and reluctantly through the Lobby. The pictures which used to be seen of Tory Members emerging from the Lobby under the direction of Captain Margesson had never been seen in history since Dr. Keats ceased to preside over Eton.
I am concerned at the attitude of the Leader of the House, and I do not think the matter ought to be left here. There has not been a speech made yet in which someone has not said that this is a House


of Commons matter. What is the meaning of "a House of Commons matter"? The meaning is that it is something in which Members are concerned as Members of the Commons and not as Members of a party, something in which Members are here to serve the interests of the House at large and not to follow the party line. Then we are told that the whips are on. I hope that the Leader of the House has been listening to me. I do not press it on him too closely, as it may not be wholly agreeable, but I hope that he is gathering remotely the purport of my remarks.
The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) has spoken, and I am sorry that some of his observations were criticised, because I agree with most of them. But I am sure that he has not read his whip, because he indicated a clear point of view. Nobody would apply to the noble Lord the term which used to be applied to us when we on these benches were in government—the term "Lobby fodder." I would not make such an accusation against him. But if he has read his whip, I think it was a little ingenuous of him to conclude his remarks by saying that he had reluctantly come to the conclusion that he had got to vote against the sentiments that he had previously expressed, without saying that there was at least another reason for doing so.
It may be, of course, that the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth has misread his whip, as I have known happen. Perhaps he has misread the whip, which was directed to the Cocos Islands Bill and the Northern Ireland Bill, and not to this matter at all. If that is so, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will make it clear.
I have always found the Leader of the House very courteous and considerate, although there have been times in the past when there was disagreement, but I suggest—and I want to use the most modest words that I can—that the mathematical argument was not founded upon any previous system of mathematics. He said, "You have to have 36 members, because you divide that number by seven, and you do that by knocking off the Chairman, and then it works out all right." But what happens when someone is ill? What happens when two people are ill? We cannot divide by seven

when somebody is away. We then have four on a Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said we cannot have six. He said it is mathematically impossible to add one to one of the Committees, but of course we have to subtract one about once a month. When the smog is about we might as well subtract the lot. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is all too fanciful.
Let us apply the argument to another section of his mathematics. He said, "We have to represent all parties, and the Liberal Party has one member." I am very happy that it has one member. I should be the last person on earth to use any words which could be understood to limit the Liberal Party's right to have one member on the Committee. But on sheer mathematics it represents one one-hundred-and-twentieth of the membership of the House. There are only 35 members of the Committee, so the Liberals immediately upset the mathematics.
But that is not all. When my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip of the Labour Party finds it impossible to recognise six of his flock, his mathematics are at once out of joint because he has based them on a Labour Party membership of 294 or whatever it might be, and not on 287 or 288—for I am not sure where my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) stands on this. If he will forgive me for saying so, I am not sure where he stands on one or two things, although when he expresses himself it is fair to say that there is then no misunderstanding and we always know where he stands.
We are in a mathematical dilemma, for the mathematics seem to have no basis. If we made the number 37 or 38, it could not possibly be argued on any figures that these adjustments would be other than relatively unimportant. The right hon. Gentleman's explanation will not do.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) said that this was a new situation. I must say hon. Members opposite are to be congratulated on their tact about their colleagues, for we have had two independent Conservatives in the last six months. I think both the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) and the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) were independent Conservatives for a considerable period.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, but I can speak for myself, and I would point out that there is a big difference between the position I was in and the position in which the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) finds himself. I resigned from the Conservative Party whereas the hon. Member and his hon. Friends appear to have resigned from the Parliamentary Labour Party but not from the Labour Party as a whole. They are, therefore, in the position of being neither independent nor members of the party.

Mr. Hale: The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely took a courageous decision, and is entitled to the credit for it. However much one disagrees with an hon. Member, one always admires him when he takes a courageous decision. I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member, for we now have the position made clear; I did not know that he had resigned from the party as well as declining the whip. This is the point: my hon. Friends are not members of the Parliamentary Labour Party but they are perfectly good Labour Members. They are, therefore, neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring.
This is the first time that I remember in the history of Parliament when there has been no independent Member. I am not one of those who regard that as necessarily a good thing. It is said that this is a new situation. 1 have been a Member of the House for only 10 years—not quite that; let us look back over those 10 years. There was Sir Andrew Duncan, who sat on the front bench and yet said, "I am not a party member." There was Sir John Anderson—Lord Waverley—who was Chancellor of the Exchequer and who said, "I am not a party member."
I know the answer. Hon. Members opposite cannot give it, so I will give it. They will say, "But this was bogus. This was to deceive the electorate. Everyone knew they were Tories but we used to tell the country that they were independent-minded chaps and we got a lot of advantage from it." I know that.
There was Mr. Lipson, the former Member for Cheltenham. The hon. Member for Cheltenham was an independent Conservative. No one would doubt his sincerity as a Member of this House. He said, "I am a Conservative,

but I will not accept the Parliamentary whip." He was in this identical position and he was on these Committees. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) put him on them, because he was the Leader of the House at the time. He submitted the names to the House and moved the Motion. It is really incorrect to say that here is a new situation which has not happened before.
It has been said that this is a matter for the usual channels. What are the usual channels for? They are there to smooth out difficulties between the parties on House of Commons matters, matters of business, and so on, and to express the party view, to say "We regard this as a Motion of censure," and so on. The usual channels work admirably to cut out a lot of argument and debate of that kind, and to show the general view of the House.
That works until there is a marked disagreement, and then, of course, it comes before the House. This is the correct Parliamentary procedure. The usual channels do, for convenience, and usually to the complete satisfaction of the House, the job which the House would have to do itself—and waste a lot of time over—if there were not this organisation to do it. When we reach a situation in which that organisation acknowledges it cannot function correctly it is a matter for the House.
If I understood what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) said, I think there is a great deal in it and I do not express marked dissent from it. My right hon. Friend said, "How can you expect my right hon. Friend to put the hon. Member for Lady-wood on this Committee when we have just withdrawn the whip from him? My right hon. Friend is the Parliamentary whip of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and it is only reasonable and sensible that he should nominate members of the Parliamentary Labour Party receiving the whip." I do not necessarily accept that, but it seems an eminently reasonable point of view. I do not think it is open to criticism or attack. I would have said that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood has done rather special service, it might be better to have a little reflection and discussion, but in the main I do not dissent from that argument.
11.15 p.m.
But once we have reached that position, seven Members are not being represented, because my right hon. Friend says, "I cannot nominate them because I am not issuing the whip to them." I do not think anyone would say that I am misrepresenting the argument or not putting it precisely as it has been put to the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne intervened and asked, "Who does it?"
The answer is, the House. I know that the right hon. Gentleman opposite can make an ingenious argument that if we carry this Amendment we will get an extra Labour Member on the Committee. No one doubts the sincerity of my hon. Friend; of course he is a Labour man—and, in my view, a very good one. Everyone knows that the right hon. Gentleman can put it right. Everyone knows there is no real dilemma. Everyone knows that if the House, as a House, says, "This is an unfortunate situation and, without wishing to cast any censure, we should like to put it right," of course it can be done, and an adjustment made later. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he commands such support that even if there were the possibility of opposition he could have the adjustment made. There is absolutely nothing in that point, and in those circumstances what justification can there be for issuing a whip on this matter? It is not customary to disclose the nature of the whip, but I do not think my right hon. Friend will object to my saying that in those circumstances no whip was issued on this side of the House. And it is right that one should say that in the peculiar circumstances, although it would have been a wrong thing to do, it might have been understandable if it had been done; if my right hon. Friends were feeling angry or frustrated or annoyed, it might have been done.
But my right hon. Friends have not done that, and they had more temptation to do it than the other side of the House. In those circumstances I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House frankly whether a whip has been issued, and whether, on reflection, having listened to the arguments, and having listened to every speech saying, "This is a House of Commons matter, this is not a party matter," he thinks he ought to put it right.
There is one further argument. The other thing which has been said from start to finish in this debate by hon. Member after hon. Member is, "When I go to the Estimates Committee and listen to people talking, I would not know, from what they said, to what party they belong." There is a reason, very often, in examining Estimates, why there should be a party point of view, because the object of the Estimates Committee is to secure economy. I am not saying that in any ironical sense.
However, one cannot tell what party they belong to. Then what does it matter? What are we arguing about? The entire discussion has been on the basis that party is so vital to the Estimates Committee that the slightest variation in the balance would upset the whole thing. But then Members say, "We cannot tell to which party they belong. If it were not for the colour of their tie, or some other well-known emblem, we would never know." Then why are we having this discussion?
I cannot sit down without making a final point. It is an important one. I do not know anything about the qualifications for being a member of the Estimates Committee. I have never been a member, I have never been asked to be a member, and I have never been asked if I wanted to be a member during the 10 years I have been in this House. So I have no knowledge of its workings. But I was at one time interested in the law and Constitution, and there was a day in this House when a famous Resolution was moved in 1760, if I remember aright, by Dunnin, who said that the power of the Crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished.
I think the power of the whips has increased, and when I say that I am not making any criticism of the whips. I think they are called upon to perform the most difficult, delicate, and onerous duties, and I think that the present burden has been put upon them as a result of a position in which for some years the party balance has been so small that it has been necessary to have almost every hon. Member of this House in attendance. It has been an almost intolerable burden.
The whips have to decide whether someone is fit enough to come and vote on a vital issue. [Laughter.] I thought I heard the cock crow once, and I paused


for the other two. The hon. Member who laughed was not here in those rather dirty days, when we had to bring cripples and women with fractured skulls from hospital, and when we wheeled dying men through the Lobby in bath chairs—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is straying very far from the matter before the House.

Mr. Hale: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to be conciliatory but, for a moment, I was distracted from my main argument by something in the nature of an animal noise.
There is no doubt that an intolerable burden is placed on the whips. My experience in the last 12 months, during which I have had to endure a good deal of illness, has made me grateful for the courtesy and consideration which I have received, but it still is a serious matter when we get to the stage that the whips have to consider matters of this kind—to decide whether one man shall be allowed, for business or domestic reasons, or for reasons of illness, to pair, and another shall not, and to decide who shall go on Committees.

One of my hon. Friends intervened to say that questions of suitability were hardly relevant. When an hon. Member opposite—I think the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth—said that it was a question of picking the ablest men, one of my hon. Friends said "When was that done?" It was solace to my feelings. I think it is open to comment that, on the whole, the system of picking the ablest men might be the preferable system in the circumstances. However, the situation is as I have said.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say that whoever issued the whip in the circumstances was ill-advised, and that he does not ask his flock to follow—I was about to say "his crook," but that word might be deemed to have been selected for some malign purpose—the pastor. I hope that he will say that in the circumstances he does not make that demand, and will let each vote according to his conscience on this occasion, even if it cannot be permitted in the future.

Question put, That "Thirty-six" stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 31.

Division No. 28.]
AYES
[11.26 p.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Armstrong, C. W.
Errington, Sir Eric
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Fell, A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Banks, Col. C.
Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert


Barber, Anthony
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Barlow, Sir John
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McKibbin, A. J.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Gough, C. F. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gower, H. R.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Birch, Nigel
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maude, Angus


Bishop, F. P.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mellor, Sir John


Bowden, H. W.
Hargreaves, A.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mitchison, G. R.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Molson, A. H. E.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Morris, Percy (Swansea. W)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Heath, Edward
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Neave, Airey


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon P G T
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Bullard, D. G
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Burden, F. F. A.
Holmes, Horace
Oakshott, H. D.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N)


Cary, Sir Robert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Clarke, Col. Sir Ralph(East Grinstead)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Page, R. G.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Pearson, A.


Colegate, Sir W. A.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J
Pitman, I. J.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Crouch, R. F.
Iremonger, T. L.
Popplewell, E.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Powell, J. Enoch


Davidson, Viscountess
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Kaberry, D.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Doughty, C. J. A.
Kerby, Capt. H. B
Ramsden, J. E.


Drayson, G. B.
Kerr, H. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.




Redmayne, M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Ward, Miss I (Tynemouth)


Ridsdale, J. E.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wellwood, W.


Roper, Sir Harold
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Touche, Sir Gordon
Wilkins, W. A


Sharples, Maj. R. C.
Turner, H. F. L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Turton, R. H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Spearman, A. C. M.
Vane W. M. F.
Wills, G.


Stevens, Geoffrey
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Vosper, D. F.



Studholme, H. G.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Summers, G. S.
Wall, Major Patrick
Sir Cedric Drewe and


Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Mr. Richard Thompson.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Grimond, J.
Rankin, John


Albu, A. H.
Hale, Leslie
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Baird, J.
Holt, A. F.
Royle, C.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Crosland, C. A. R
McGovern, J.
Wigg, George


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Willis, E. G


Delargy, H. J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Yates, V F


Foot, M. M.
Palmer, A. M. F.



Greenwood, Anthony
Plummer, Sir Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Norman Smith and Mr. Wade


Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Blackburn, Sir Alfred Bossom, Mr. Dryden Brook, Miss Burton, Mr. Norman Cole, Sir William Darling, Viscountess Davidson, Sir Eric Errington, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Holt, Mr. Horobin, Mr. H. Hynd, Mr. T. W. Jones, Mr. MacColl, Mr. Malcolm MacPherson, Commander Maitland, Major Sir Frank Markham, Mr. Mulley, Mr. Godfrey Nicholson, Mr. Nigel Nicolson, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Sir Ian Orr-Ewing, Sir Leslie Plummer, Brigadier Prior-Palmer, Mr. Proctor, Mr. Kenneth Robinson, Mr. William Ross, Mr. William Shepherd, Mr. Sparks, Mr. Geoffrey Stevens, Mr. Summers, Mr. Tomney, Miss Ward, Captain Waterhouse, and Mr. Ian Winterbottom to be Members of the Committee:

Seven to be the Quorum:

Power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time:

Power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee:

Three to be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee:

Every such Sub-Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; and to adjourn from place to place:

Power to report from time to time Minutes of Evidence taken before Sub-Committees.—[Sir C. Drewe.]

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SELECT COMMITTEE)

Resolution of the House [1st December] relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee and Lords Message [2nd December] signifying their concurrence to the said Resolution read.

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a Select Committee of Seven Members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords to consider what alterations, if any, are desirable in the practice and the Standing Orders of the two Houses relating to private legislation, having special regard to the desirability of lessening the expense at present incurred.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, to leave out "Seven" and to insert "Eight."
I am sorry to weary the House with this Amendment at this late stage. Although the underlying principle is very much the same as the one we have been discussing, there are certain essential differences to which I call the attention of the Leader of the House. The arguments he used in the previous debate do not exactly apply here. It cannot be argued that the Committee dealing with Private Bill procedure is in exactly the same category as the Select Committee on Estimates. It is a different Committee, which cannot be said to be organised on party lines.
It is a special Committee set up to deal with questions of Private Bill procedure which is a highly technical and procedural matter. The purpose of the Amendment is to make it possible to include among the members of the Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) who has, up to now, served on the Committee. The essential difference between this Committee and the Select Committee is that it is in the middle of taking evidence. It has heard a considerable amount of evidence and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has taken an active part in the deliberations.
The Committee has already heard several witnesses, including the Chairman of Committee of the House of Commons, the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, and representatives of the Parliamentary Bar, as well as the repre-

sentations of the Parliamentary agents, so that a very large amount of extremely technical and expert evidence has been heard and I submit that it would be entirely wrong to remove one Member from this Committee and appoint another at this particular stage.
I submit to the Leader of the House that the technical arguments, mathematics and arithmetic do not apply to this particular case and that it would not upset the balance of parties in the House if this Committee were to be allowed to continue with eight members instead of seven, and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, whose legal knowledge and knowledge of procedure is known to the House.
I know it may be a rather difficult matter to sell the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to the House of Commons just now; and he has, of course, his critics on all sides of the House. His critics on this side, when they want to call him anything bad, describe him not as a Socialist but as an extreme individualist, and the biggest individualist in the House. When hon. Members on the other side wish to describe him in the worst possible terminology they describe him as an adjectival nuisance.
But I do suggest that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has a very vast experience of procedure in this House and could render service to the deliberations of the Committee. He has listened to all this expert evidence and I submit it was not only an injustice to the hon. Member but it would be unfair to the Committee and to the House if, at this stage, he is dropped purely because of his action in another matter.
I therefore submit that this is a different matter, that the Leader of the House, having achieved his victory on what may be called the main opportunity of the other Amendment, could very magnanimously and very generously, agree to this without in any way handing over his authority, or injuring the usual channels or invalidating the arguments he used on the previous Amendment.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Frank Bowles: I beg to second the Amendment.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that this is really a quite different


matter, and I appeal to the Leader of the House to accept this Amendment. Let me, first of all, refer to the right hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks on the proportional representation of parties in this House. If he looks at the names of hon. Members on the Order Paper, and their parties, he will see that it is suggested that the following be appointed: Mr. Bowles (Labour), Mr. Erroll (Conservative), Mr. Glenvil Hall (Labour), Lieutenant-Colonel Lockwood (Conservative), Mr. Mitchison (Labour), Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Conservative), and Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Conservative)—that is, four Conservatives and three Labour Members. The Chairman happens to be my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall).
Therefore, on the party side of the matter, there are two Labour Members and four Conservatives from this House. I think, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman's argument, so far as it may have been thought to be relevant in the earlier debate, does not arise in this case, so there would be no difficulty in increasing the membership by one and increasing the Labour representation by one. Even then the Labour Party would be in a minority of one—three to four—so far as House of Commons representation is concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire is perfectly right. Hon. Members know that when a Session comes to an end all Standing Committees and Select Committees also come to an end, and that is why we have to reappoint this one. We have already had six or seven meetings at which very important people have given evidence. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has attended every meeting, and anyone who read the Reports of the Committee will know that my hon. Friend has been very diligent in what he has been doing. As my hon. Friend said, probably six or seven people have already given evidence.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who has just left the Chamber, and who is the new proposed member of this Committee, would, I should think, find it very difficult to ask for the recall of any of the gentlemen who have already given evidence. It might be possible to do that, but it would be very difficult in view of the amount of time which they have

already devoted to giving their evidence to the Committee as constituted before Christmas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne has been pursuing one or two courses in his cross-examinations, and he will now be debarred, unless this Amendment is accepted, of being able to carry those cross-examinations to a logical conclusion in the case of the people who are to give evidence later on. Therefore, I feel that, in this case, the situation is rather different from the previous one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne has been doing some very valuable work on the Committee. He has given up many hours to it. He is a professional man, and has probably suffered in the sense that he has not been able to attend to his professional duties which he might otherwise have done. He has been regular in his attendance of the Committee.
Having regard to all the circumstances, to the fact that the Committee has done part of its work, to the impossibility or difficulty of recalling old witnesses, and to the fact that my hon. Friend will be unable to examine future witnesses on the facts that he has already elicited from his previous examinations, I think that on this occasion the House should increase the membership of the Committee. As I said just now, even if it did that, the Labour Party would still be in a minority of three to four on the Commons side of Parliament.

Mr. George Thomas: Does not the Leader of the House intend to say a word in reply to what my hon. Friends have been saying in proposing and seconding this Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time in which to rise had he wished to reply to the arguments of my hon. Friends. After all, if this Amendment, also, is not to be accepted, it looks as if there is some vindictiveness at work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who from?"] Oh, yes, but from whom is another question altogether. It is no good right hon. and hon. Members opposite trying to look virtuous and to suggest that they have nothing to do with this. They troop into the Division Lobby to make sure that hon. Members on this side of the House are not allowed to serve on this Committee.
Earlier, we listened to a speech of high principle by an hon. Member opposite, but somehow the high principle got dissipated before the hon. Gentleman reached the Division Lobby, and he voted in a way different from the tenor of his speech. On this question, reason combines with sentiment to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) should be allowed to continue to serve the interests of the House on this Committee.
Everyone knows that my hon. Friend is a master on the question of the customs, the traditions and the usages of this House. There is no hon. Member to whom the House listens more carefully than to my hon. Friend when he is dealing with questions of procedure. It seems that we shall be cutting off our noses to spite our faces if we say that on this Committee as well my hon. Friend shall not be allowed to serve.
I do not want to enter into arguments advanced in connection with the previous Amendment, but I suggest that we are making a laughing stock of ourselves if on this, again, we obey our orders, tramp through the Lobbies and allow the party machine again to stamp its victory upon the House of Commons. Surely there is enough backbone somewhere for protests to be made against this sort of treatment for back benchers. I hope that in the next Division we shall at least have some hon. Members from the other side coming with us as a gesture of their lack of patience with the sort of policy now being pursued.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): It is getting late, so I shall be brief. No two cases are the same, otherwise they would not be debatable on the same night, but, of course, these cases are very much of the same nature. The subject-matter which this particular Committee is discussing is quite different from that of the other, but the fact that it sat in the same form last Session, while the other one did not, is a different point. I recognise all that. Obviously, if an hon. Member no longer sits on a Committee on which he has previously served, his experience is not available to his fellow-members on the Committee.
No hon. Member has a vested right, of course, to be on any Committee at all; that is why the nominations have to come

before the House. The broad argument remains that the only way in which it has been found possible down the years to establish these Committees has been by receiving nominations from both sides. There is, of course, the exception which I mentioned earlier about smaller parties and truly independent Members. That applies in this case just as much as in the others.
The proportion between the parties, as the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) has pointed out is four to three, and in this case the chairmanship is on the Labour side. Sometimes it is on one side and sometimes on the other. Those are matters which are discussed. That is how the machinery of this House works. One has to have some sort of machinery and, on the whole, the machinery for setting up these Committees has, so far as I know, been completely satisfactory for years past.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Can the Leader of the House perhaps help us by placing before the House precedents in which it has been decided to change the personnel of such a Committee when the Committee was reappointed after the Recess?

Mr. Crookshank: I have not got that information at my finger's end—and I do not know that it is really relevant. Of course, it is a Committee set up for each Session, otherwise some procedure would have been devised to have it run on until it finally reported. It has not been done in that way.

Mr. Greenwood: If the right hon. Gentleman now says it is an entirely new Committee can he explain how it is able to take into consideration evidence which it has not heard?

Mr. Crookshank: Each Committee is a new Committee, because Sessions end and reappointments have to be made. In this case, the same terms of reference are there, and I understand that the evidence of last Session is being taken into consideration. I took it from the hon. Member from Nuneaton, who is a member of the Committee, that that evidence was to be taken into account.

Mr. Bowles: What I said was that my hon. Friend, who has already cross-examined six to eight witnesses over six


to eight sittings, will not be present when we come to discuss our final recommendations. He will not be able to continue his line of argument through cross-examination of future witnesses, and the old members of the Committee will probably not be able to recall previous witnesses. Therefore, the only people left fully seized will be the members who have been common to both Committees. That is why we think it a mistake to change the membership of the Committee halfway through for such a paltry reason as this.

Mr. Crookshank: I have no knowledge of what the reason is, except from what I hear in this House. All I am concerned with is that the nominations are sent to me by the responsible authority which has always exercised its right and it is not for me to interfere with its nominations. That is all I am saying, and that is broadly the argument which I submitted to the House on the previous occasion, and which was accepted.
I quite recognise that there are differences in degree and detail in this matter, but the same principle still applies, that unless Committees can be set up through nominations by particular parties or by independents or smaller groups, it will be quite impossible ever to start up any of these Committees at all because it is only from those sources that one can learn who is available and, in many cases, who wants to serve on them. I hope, therefore, that the House in this case will take the same view as it did previously.

Mr. George Wigg: I think the Leader of the House did himself less than justice in making the reply that he has made tonight. The responsibility rests with him. Of course, he is a party man, and a good party man, but when he has discharged his duty to his party he still has his duty to the House of Commons. It is no good him falling back on the argument that we must have some machinery and that, having accepted the nominations which have been put forward, he has discharged his duty. When the nominations have been received, the right hon. Gentleman has still got his job to do, not as a Tory but as a House of Commons man.
The right hon. Gentleman has cut very heavily into his integrity by making the reply that he has made tonight. However long he may remain in the House

of Commons, or however long he may be in another place, when he turns back the pages of HANSARD and reads what he said tonight, he will be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: It is unusual for an hon. Member who is himself the subject of an Amendment to intervene in the debate on it. I only do so because it seems to me that for once in my Parliamentary life I may be able to do so and at the same time be of assistance to the House—assistance, that is, by saving myself and the House any further embarrassment in this matter.
I allowed the Amendment which two of my hon. Friends so generously moved and seconded to go upon the Order Paper for two reasons. One was that it seemed to me that as the Committee was of a quasi-judicial nature, it required, when it came to give its report, a situation in which those who deliberated upon what they would recommend to both Houses would be people who had heard all the evidence. In the situation which was developing it looked as if one Member would have heard the first part of the evidence and not the second, and another Member would have heard the second part of the evidence and not the first.
The other reason was that I confess that I enjoyed membership of the Committee and was able to deceive myself perhaps into thinking that I was of some assistance to it. But I have heard the discussion on the previous Amendment, and I have heard the right hon. Gentleman's reply. I think that perhaps I can save the House a considerable amount of time if I say at once that I have no further desire to serve upon this Committee.

Mr. Speaker: In those circumstances, does the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) desire to withdraw the Amendment?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Yes, Sir. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time:

Three to be the Quorum:

Mr. Bowles, Mr. Erroll, Mr. Glenvil Hall, Lieutenant-Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Mitchison, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, and Mr. Geoffrey Wilson to be Members of the Committee.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships, and to request them to appoint an equal number of Lords to join with the Committee appointed by this House.

Orders of the Day — ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY (STAFF)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott]

12.1 a.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: Last year, Parliament agreed to the setting up of an Atomic Energy Authority, and this House then debated, in addition to many complicated questions of administration, the future of the existing staff who had previously been working on atomic energy and their conditions of employment. On that occasion hon. Members asked the present Minister's predecessor, who is now Minister of Education, for certain assurances about security of employment and other matters. In general, fewer difficulties have been revealed during the past few months since that debate than had been expected by many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
It is fair to say that it is to the credit of all concerned—of the staff associations and of the Authority—that the negotiations on the future of the staff have gone fairly smoothly. Nevertheless, it was a complicated operation and I thought that it would be valuable to discuss the problems which remain, by way of an Adjournment debate, to review the progress that has occurred since the last debate, and to direct the attention of my right hon. Friend to a number of matters.
It is clear that the sudden influx of a large number of highly trained atomic workers into comparatively rural areas in different parts of the country gives rise to important problems for the people who live in those areas and for the local authorities who preside over their affairs. I do not for one moment suppose that atomic energy workers would claim any

special privileges in the areas in which they come to reside, but it is the responsibility, as the Minister will readily agree, of the Atomic Energy Authority to provide houses for the workers who come to live there, to see that there are sufficient facilities for the education of their children and also to be responsible for the welfare of the employees and the security of their employment.
I will deal, first, with the question of houses. It would be proper for me to congratulate the Authority on the arrangement it has made with local councils to build houses in various areas and, in particular, that of North Berkshire, my constituency, where the Atomic Energy Research Establishment is situated at Harwell. It has now been agreed by Abingdon Corporation that 500 new houses should be built for employees of the Establishment at Harwell. The industry, as it is now becoming, is likely to expand. Therefore, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he will tell us what is the general building policy of the Authority for the future.
I realise that at Harwell, Aldermaston and Risley, where there are atomic establishments of varying types, the new employees will have to wait for several months for a house. Some distinction must be made between the employees of the Authority recruited from outside the area and those who are locally recruited and who are often semi-skilled or unskilled workers. The latter would be the responsibility, one might think, of the local authority. Naturally, local councils will have regard, as a matter of priority, to those persons who are on their housing lists in the first instance. Therefore, it would be convenient if my right hon. Friend would tell us the policy of the Authority towards building for these specialised workers, brought in from outside, on whom the whole future of the project depends, and give us an assurance that a steady flow of houses for the type of employee will continue.
Now I turn to what I regard as a very important point and a matter on which a great many employees of the Atomic Energy Authority are at present somewhat concerned. It may well be that it would not be unfair to say that perhaps a little more foresight in certain areas than, from information at my disposal, has been shown, might have been exercised in preparing for the influx into rural


areas of atomic workers and their families by providing for education of their children. It is quite clear that a large majority of these employees are young married persons and in the North Berkshire area, where Harwell is situated, on a great many of the atomic energy estates the birthrate is extremely high. Often the birthrate per thousand is double that of the national average for the United Kingdom. In Harwell, the estimated average number of children per year per 1,000 of the population is very often more than 30 on some of these housing estates.
Although that may be a welcome matter for the employees of the Authority who are thus producing children who may be able to carry on their work on this great project, nevertheless it raises a remarkably difficult problem for the local education authorities. I ask my right hon. Friend to maintain the fullest consultation with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education upon this matter. He will be aware of the problems of the education authorities in North Berkshire. A number of new schools and a certain amount of additional school accommodation is planned in places like Chilton, Abingdon, Didcot and Wantage. A new grammar school is planned in Didcot for March, 1956. Yet this is not the only part of the country where workers are worried about the future education of their families. I instance the case of Windscale, in Cumberland. At present, in the Abingdon area there are definite signs of overcrowding in the schools, occasioned by this problem. Grammar school facilities are particularly required. Thus we have a secondary as well as a primary school problem in the area where Harwell is likely to expand. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that the same applies to Aldermaston and, in particular, to Windscale. It may well apply in other areas in the North of England where there are atomic energy establishments, although I am not sufficiently acquainted with the details to be able to say.
It may not be too much to ask that, in consultation with the Minister of Education, my right hon. Friend will consider the possibility of making these areas special areas, as it were, from the education point of view. Because of the high birthrate it is extremely difficult to assess when the peak will be reached for

this type of education in the future. That, of course, would not be forgetting the needs of children not connected with the atomic energy centres in the area. According to my information the staff negotiations to which I have referred have proceeded fairly smoothly and the Authority and staff associations are to be congratulated upon them. It would appear, from my information, that the major items of transfer of the staff from the Civil Service have been settled, but there are three points which need clarification, and if my right hon. Friend can do this, he will be rendering a great service to those who may not be sure about the position.
First, I am sure he will confirm that the practice of joint consultation between the Atomic Energy Authority and the staff side on future conditions of service ought to continue. Secondly, there is the question of the career prospects of those who are in the service of the Authority at the present time. My right hon. Friend well knows that those who have been civil servants in the past are used to a defined "pyramid," as it is called, of advancement; to some definite plan by which they receive promotion.
It so happens that the Atomic Energy Authority has been advertising certain posts in the newspapers and has required the existing staff, who have previously been in the Civil Service, to compete for those very appointments which they had been holding under the Ministry of Supply. In fact, as my right hon. Friend probably knows, in some cases they have applied for their own jobs and, fortunately, have got them back.
What I should like to know is what is the general policy of the Authority with regard to what might be described as the career structure for the employees in its service. Naturally, everyone who is employed fears uncertainty as to his future. These two matters are linked to a certain fear of redundancy that exists among the staff, according to my information, namely, that certain changes in international policy might occur which could affect those working, for example, in the Weapons Group. What will be their future in the event of certain changes, and what assurances can be given to them?
Thirdly, what is the position when atomic power stations, now in course of


construction, are completed and perhaps—though I do not know exactly what the plans may be in this respect—are taken over on some ultimate occasion by the British Electricity Authority? What will then be the position of the staff, and could assurances be given to them so that they may regard their future with a certain amount of confidence?
I want to make it clear to my right hon. Friend that, although many things have gone smoothly, the staff are naturally thinking seriously of their future, and the peacetime atomic energy project, which is a pioneering achievement that will influence the health and wealth of millions, depends on them. I therefore suggest to my right hon. Friend that we have an obligation to those who work in this service and who are employees of the Atomic Energy Authority to see that they feel secure and confident in their mission, by which it is hoped that atomic energy may prove a boon to peace-loving nations and will contribute to the welfare of mankind.

12.15 a.m.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Nigel Birch): We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) for raising these questions tonight. He is the Member for Harwell, and, therefore, the Member for what might be described as the parent establishment of the Atomic Energy Authority. He has always taken a keen interest in this subject, and, as is apparent from his speech, is extremely well-informed about it.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of problems dealing with the welfare of those who work for the Atomic Energy Authority, and I shall try to deal with them in the few minutes that I have.
I want, first, to make a general point about housing and education. These problems are, of course, not peculiar to the employees of the Atomic Energy Authority. Such matters as the size of classes in primary schools, the number of grammar school places, or the difficulty of getting a house are matters which exercise the minds of most parents and most people in the country, as any Member of Parliament can testify. I feel it is worth making that point.
As to housing, my hon. Friend seemed not altogether dissatisfied with the progress made, but I should like to say one

or two words on the subject. My hon. Friend said that this was the responsibility of the Authority. I could not quite agree with that. I think that it is primarily the responsibility of the local authorities. The policy of the Authority is as far as possible to recruit staff locally—although only a certain part of the staff can be so recruited—and I think it fair to say that it must be the responsibility of the local authorities to look after the housing of people who are, and always have been, resident in their areas. So that is left to the local authorities.
On the other hand, of course, it is necessary in all the establishments to bring in many highly qualified men from outside their areas, and that presents a problem. If those people cannot be accommodated, the work will be held up; and they are not on the lists of the local housing authorities. In all these matters the local authorities have been very helpful, but they cannot always put up houses for all the new employees who must be brought in if things are to go ahead as we want. It is for that reason that a number of housing estates have been built, formerly by the Ministry of Supply, and now by the Authority.
On the whole, as I think my hon. Friend recognises, the policy has not worked too badly. He talked of people having to wait for some months. The waiting time varies between different establishments of the Authority from a few weeks to a year. I do not think that compares at all badly with the experience of people employed either by other public authorities or by industry. The record really has been quite good. The policy is, therefore, to rely on the local authorities for the people who live locally and to encourage the local authorities to do all they can for those who come in, but, in cases of extreme difficulty and urgency, for the Authority itself to build houses. That policy will continue.
My hon. Friend next raised the question of education. That is to a certain extent bound up with the housing problem. Different problems arise where the housing estates are situated within or near existing towns and where they are situated on isolated sites. This, again, is not primarily a problem for the Authority, but for the Ministry of Education and the local education authorities. Where, I think, the


Authority can help is in the following ways. First, it can give the longest possible warning to the local education authorities and to the Ministry of Education of its future plans; and that is what the Authority has tried to do. Secondly, it can, and does in some cases, allot buildings permanently or temporarily to the local education authority for use as schools; and it has set aside sites on which schools can be built in the future. There is no doubt that the local education authorities have been, on the whole, extremely helpful.
Parents are naturally anxious to see that their children get the best possible education—that, of course, does not apply only to parents employed by the Authority—and I have been into this matter, although it is not primarily my responsibility, and have discussed it with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education. I can say that the local education authorities have got a fairly firm grip on the situation and that, given all the difficulties of a large and rapid influx into certain areas, together with the high birthrate, they have not made a bad job of it. I am convinced that in the future they will make an even better job.
My hon. Friend referred to staff problems. Obviously, some of these problems will arise. There has been a dispute in the past as to whether it would be better to run the atomic energy project through a Government Department or through a public authority; and we decided, I think quite rightly, on the public authority. But nobody suggested that we should have a mixture of the two; if there is a public authority it has to run its own show, and the change-over raises staff problems. People have to go over to a new employer and old loyalties have to be broken.
Within my own experience at the Ministry of Works I have met men who have gone over to the new Authority, and have felt doubts and difficulties about going over to a new employer. It has taken time to sort out this kind of thing, but there has to be discussion with the

staff side before all the agreements with individual employees can be brought about. But I understand that, as my hon. Friend has said, these difficulties are now being cleared up, and that the problem looks like being solved.
My hon. Friend then raised the question of promotion, and of recruitment from outside. The policy of the Authority is that if possible it will recruit within its own organisation. If there is a man available with the necessary qualifications he will get the job; but we are dealing with an organisation which is expanding rapidly and which makes many demands upon special skills of various sorts. It is unreasonable, therefore, to suppose that the Authority can get on without recruiting qualified men from outside. It has been clearly laid down, however, and agreed with the staff that, other things being equal, the preference will be given to the man who is working with the Authority. I am advised that there is no question of redundancy arising through electric power stations being worked by the B.E.A.
The Authority's job is to act as a good employer. It has various special problems owing to the isolated nature of many of its establishments, but I think its past record has been good and we can be confident that it will act worthily in the future.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these points, which I think were worth raising. I have answered them as best I can. My hon. Friend can be assured that my noble Friend the Lord President and I shall always be open to representations on these subjects and shall always do what lies in our power to ensure the harmony and happiness of all those who work for the Atomic Energy Authority.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.